Puzzled by the Guardian embrace of Transgender Ideology and lack of concern for the impact on women’s rights, I decided to have a look. As a lifelong Guardian reader the piece that prompted me to have a look was a campaign to move a ”transgender” prisoner to the female estate.
Marie Dean & Tara Hudson
I wrote a piece on that here 👇 below is a clip detailing the sexual nature of the offences.
The Scott Trust have oversight of the Guardian Group’s editorial policy in the event of any disagreement. They also have hiring and firing control over the Editor.
One of the Trustees also sits on the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. This foundation funds a number of trans-lobby groups including Mermaids.
Thompson Reuters Foundation
For those of you familiar with the Denton’s document you will be aware that the above foundation supported its production. The document is provides to strategic advice on how best to embed Gender Identity Ideology in institutions, the media and the political elite. I wrote about this here:
So, let’s take another look at the People who are trustees for the Scott Trust. 👇
As you can see one of the Trustees, appointed in 2021, also sits on the Thompson Reuters Foundation. She also used to work for twitter.
Open Society Foundations
I am indebted to Julian Vigo for this next section. I had been looking at the funding handed out by the Open Society Foundation. The OS Foundation funds many initiatives which are pro-democracy and many that , at least at a superfical level, appear to be laudable. At the same time they funnel money to organisations which are pro-prostitution and Gender Identity Ideology. Their database, of grantees, is on-line and searchable. This is what came up when I searched the Guardian.
It would be interested to know if anyone else think the Guardian coverage crossed a line in coversge of ”transgender” issues in the run up to the consultancy on the Gender Recognition Act.
Here are some other foundations funding content at the Guardian.
Revolving door in the Charity Sector.
Just as an aside the other way this ideology gets embedded is the revolving door between posts in the Charity Sector. This is Nancy Kelley’s CV; MIND, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Refugee Council and Barnados.
Also Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Stonewall Champion.
You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus. Don’t prioritise me over the legal cases.
This week (7th September 2021) an interview with Judith Butler was published in The Guardian. It created a bit of a furore on Terf Island twitter, for comparing Gender Critical feminists to fascists. In the midst of the backlash the article was significantly amended. For the record, I do not think her words should have been censored. As it happens many people had taken copes of the article and, as the interviewer (Jules Gleeson) boasted on twitter, it has been drawn to the attention of far more people. (Search ”Streisand effect” if you need context for this tweet).
About Jules Gleeson
The interviewer is a self proclaimed intersex activist, with an interesting body of work.
It is perfectly possible the above 👆is a factual statement and they do indeed have a difference in sexual development (DSD). There are a number of variations of sexual characteristics which fall under the term; though “intersex” is a label that has fallen out of favour for many people with DSDs. It is also worth noting that many people self–identify as ”intersex”, which is a contentious issue in these circles. The self-identifying kind of “intersex” tend to use this term because it serves to undermine notions of sexual dimorphism. Its a loaded term for that reason.
The interviewer has undertaken niche research centred on cross-dressing monastic saints and ”explanations of eunuchs as a normalised-yet-contentious feature of late Romanlife”. I would quite like to read it to see why we are normalising this, again, in the 21st Century. I am quite serious. I am not a theologian, I am a devout, atheist. I am curious about the recurrent references to the divine in pontifications on transgender issues. There also parallels with some Christian ascetic sects, which practiced castrations/mastectomy to mortify the flesh. (See the branch of Russian Orthodox Christians , The Skoptsy). It would be fascinating to see how these world views overlap. Note, I am not accusing Gleeson of being Skoptsy adjacent. 😂. That would be an association fallacy.
Here are a few of the other pieces Gleeson published, in the New Socialist. This should give you a flavour of their preoccupations. 👇
Here are some more pieces. Suprise, Suprise, they were not a fan of the Lesbians who protested Pride to defend same sex attraction. They have also castigated The Guardian, previously, for transphobia.
I am not going to link to all the articles but I will include this one, re the Labour Party Leadership contest, for sheer devilry. I particularly enjoy the way Peter Stringfellow is wedged into a critique of, female centred, feminism. Thats a smear, by association, too far for this feminist 😂.
Here the Queen of Queer wades in with her obsession for re-categorising the female sex, to include males. While the male sex still commit 99% of all sex offences, overwhelmingly against women, this is a breathtakingly naive stance. Her pronouncements about pronouns do not address the concrete realities about women’s lives. So far the advantages, for women, seem to be, checks notes, male rapists in female prisons, males competing in women’s sports, and the normalisation of dehumanising language like ”chest-feeder” or ”cervix haver”. Noticeably public information campaigns, for males, retain the word ”man” for the prostate-havers /testicle-bearers. Tis almost as if there is some SEXism at play in the gender justice movement.
She spouts the usual Butler Bollox about how we women just need to refuse to re-enact gender norms, as if nobody ever thought of this before. However, refusing to perform sex stereotypes, to liberate women, is not consistent with a choice to identify out of our sex category. In case you were not aware Butler now claims to be non-binary cos they is more enlightened than the rest of us! Are those of us claiming our womanhood deemed to be accepting the ”Gender performance” expected of us? Woman is a sex based category, this does NOT change; projections onto what being a woman means change, that is not the same thing.
Next up Judith demands that we accept a more expansive notion of womanhood which includes those who DO identify with the performance of ”Gender”. Surely this is reifying the notion of sex stereotypes and advocating carving them into flesh? If women reject them we can remove our breasts, if a man identifies with cultural norms associated with femininity he can modify his body to join the sisterhood. Doesn’t this leave us with medicalised closets for those who reject their sex, in favour of the physical embodiment of Gender Stereotypes?
Given that Butler also wishes to overthrow capitalism is she aware how much income is generated from the Gender Industrial Complex? CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 25% is considered at the upper end of pretty good. 👇
Back to the Butler article
Would it not be more radical for men to expand the category of maleness to celebrate alternative variants of masculinity? We have challenged the straightjacket of sex stereotypes in many different ways, historically, without claiming that Boy George was literally a woman. Isn’t that more radical? The addition of trans men here also looks a bit tokenistic. Women tend to focus on issues raised by males invading the female sex class. Men need not have the same concerns about females invading their spaces because SEX Matters. It may be annoying to have a blue-haired, female, teen who thinks she is a gay man. It is unlikely to make adult males feel intimidated.
She also goes a bit terfy in this next clip. Could it be she knows males, socialised as males, don’t entirely learn to shed their learned behaviours when in ”Girl Mode”? Doesn’t an inability to identify out of their maleness have implications for actual women and girls?
Notice Butler then moves on to describe a struggle against ”Gender Norms” which could sit comfortably within a Gender Critical argument. Rejecting sex stereotypes is integral to (my) “Gender Critical” feminism. We know women are real, our sex shapes aspects of our experience but biology need not be primary and controlling, in all circumstances. However we do have different bodies, to men, and sometimes that difference needs accommodating. Some of these may relate to our reproductive functions, some of them may be related to other, sex based, health needs. Others may be more prosaic in that simple product design, based on default man, often fails to meet the needs of women.
Below she is on the way to a good, if not original, point. From the moment our sex is recognised and recorded assumptions are made about the position we will hold in society. Girl children are left to cry for longer and fed less, we may be put in flouncy dresses which we are supposed to keep clean. We may be given toys to inculcate expectations of domesticity. Women’s liberation depends on unpicking this earlier grooming /female socialisation. It’s also beyond regressive to see medicalised identities as a “liberation” , for men or women, depending , as they do, on a lifetime on cross sex hormones. 👇
A couple of other observations. I am not a proponent of blank slate theory. I think both nature and nurture play a role in how the sexes are shaped. I am critical of the elements of female socialisation which encourage us to put our interests last. At the same time some of the qualities, nurtured by a female socialisation, are positive and it would be great if we inculcated them in our boy children.
ALL SEXES MATTER
This demand that feminism works to solve all the other problems Butler lists here, weakens women’s rights campaign. What other movement is asked to work on all the other injustices in the world. Can’t female people centre ourselves? We are half the population, except in countries that practice aborting female babies. This is the #AllSexesMatter for feminism. Wry smile at Butler claiming to be against misogyny. She has lent credence to the biggest attack on women’s rights for decades. The ideology she embraces has unleashed a wave of misogyny unlike any I have seen in my lifetime.
Here she says a white person cannot centre themselves in Black struggles but is simultaneously, maddeningly, blind to the obvious parallel in demanding women must centre males, in a movement for the liberation of women.
Lol at the navel-gazing, non-binary, theybe calling out the danger of becoming self-absorbed. 😂
It can hardly be news that the Pope believes man and woman are Godly creations. This is a rather run of the mill observation. However, one does not have to be religious to believe biological sex is real. This is what is known as “Association Fallacy” and it is a bad faith argument designed to paint women, who know what a woman is, as religious conservatives. To be fair, religious conservatives also deserve the protection of single sex spaces and even they are not neccessarily down with the Pope’s sexual politics. If all Italian Catholics followed the Church’s teaching on contraception, for example, it would not have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe.
Heaven help us we are Vatican adjacent apparently. Next up some guff about pronouns and the world of ”they”
Here is the offending paragraph. The furore, for anyone who remains blissfully unaware, is about a male who exposed his genitals, to women and girls, at a spa. He was in the female section of a Korean spa, where going naked is the norm. A woman complained and was told the person was in that section because they identify as a ”woman”. This is legally correct under Californian law. Trans activists first claimed this was a right wing hoax. When it turned out to be true some, Laurie Penny (see below) pivoted “they should not have been looking because that is rude”. Finally it was revealed that this is a man with a history of sex offending going back nearly 20 years, Cue, tweet deleting or brazen double downs!
Again the lack of self-awareness from the Queen of Contradiction herself. She has not even come up with a stable definition of “gender” and yet wants all laws to give primacy to a nebulous concept over a material reality. Yet, apparently the Gender Critical movement is full of contradictions. 😳
Below is how Butler characterises the women fighting to protect single sex spaces. I will give her this she is throwing every slur that comes to mind. This is a ridiculous mis-characterisation of the women fighting for women’s rights. Many of the women, and men, opposed to Gender Identity Ideology, are same sex attracted, many of the women have fought for reproductive justice, and the vast majority are in this fight because of the higher risk of sexual violence when we dismantle safeguards.
Here is the part where she blatantly compares women, fighting for sex based rights to fascists: ”The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism of our times”.
I won’t revisit the issue of attacks on trans people. I covered the transperbole on murders of trans people (males) in this post 👇. In the UK the trans demographic is one of the safest and as a group they have committed more murders than have been victims. Globally the biggest risk factor for trans-id males is working in prostitution.
Given that Butler recommends reading Anne Fausto-Sterling, in the above clip, here is detour to look at her work. She is best known for claiming there are 5 biological sexes.
She has since explained away as tongue-in-cheek prompting this memorable twitter exchange. Superb teacher voice coming through here. 👇
Invariably when women are told to “educate ourselves” we do just that and it doesn’t end well for the sex-denialists.
I would like to see Butler render her ideas in a more accessible format because her prose style seems designed to obfuscate, rather than illuminate. There is an ambiguity in her thought process that looks tactical in its evasiveness. I am not alone in making this observation, indeed twenty years ago the Guardian itself publicised an award made to Butler on her prose style.
Butler wins bad writing contest
So, ”gender” is performative and needs to be disrupted to liberate us. Saying “gender is a destructive fiction“ is beyond the pale and makes us fascists. Gender is a problem if it is performed by the sex that aligns with the associated gender identity. So, a feminine male, in Girl Mode, is cutting edge, radical politics but a female doing the same is a boring old Cis girl. A man repudiating his sex, and becoming dependent on Big Pharma, to validate his lady feelz is going to destroy capitalism. A woman who rejects sex stereotypes can become a theybe or identify as a man. Some of these identities may need hormones/surgery but it’s not a requirement. Women need to get over their genital phobia and realise that a Woman with a penis is no threat, even if she presents herself like a man because that’s just queering the binary.
I think I’ve got it!
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.
It was this article which first confused and then outraged me. (You can find more on this case on my blog here.) The Guardian campaigned to facilitate a move of a convicted, male, burglar to the female estate because he identified as a woman. However their coverage, until shamed by angry readers, de-sexualised the nature of the “burglary” and thus distorted the risk to the female prisoners.
It was this article that inspired me to do a bit of digging. The Guardian has a history of exposing #DarkMoney & labyrinthine ownership structures, which mask influence or hide money. So this was where I started.
The Guardian itself reports that it has a unique ownership structure. Part of that structure is The Scott Trust. As you can see 👇 the Board of the Trust have ultimate editorial control & power to sack the editor
This is one of The Board members. He is also on the board of The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which immediately looked familiar.
It was the Paul Hamlyn foundation that caught my eye because I had seen them referred to in the accounts of the Mermaids charity. The foundation have a search facility to see who they fund here Paul Hamlyn Foundation Grants
Sure enough 👇
Here is another beneficiary of The Paul Hamlyn Foundation. This is an organisation working with children as young as 11. If I was in charge of their branding I would definitely recommend a name change.
Naturally the Map Youth Fund also advise on “Gender” and have an interesting book collection including The Testosterone Files, Gender Outlaws, Transgender Voices. They have an entire section on Gender and this is not matched by other sections on the LGB.
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation also fund “Ditch The Label”. This is an anti-bullying charity whose CEO (Dr Liam Hackett) uses a misogynist slur (Terf) and who targeted a Lesbian, Feminist philosopher. He has blocked a lot of women who raised concerns at what appeared to be bullying behaviour. You might remember these. A lack of understanding about women’s dignity and privacy at a Breast Cancer Screening, and targeted abuse.
Another beneficiary is Gendered Intelligence. They are another key player in the debate women were told was not allowed to happen. I have seen them frequently referenced in Hansard. In particular as independent advisors on the management of trans prisoners
Here are a couple of those Hansard references. “Independent” Advisors on managing risk and safeguarding for “all” prisoners. Apparently , despite the lack of any representation from women, all stakeholders were consulted. (Cough…Karen White, Paris Green)
Some of you may remember the sexual health booklet, produced by GenderedIntelligence, and aimed at “trans youth”. Quote: “A woman is still a woman even if she enjoys getting blowjobs” . A celebration of diverse sexual practices. Remember no “kink-shaming” allowed.
This clip is the submission, by Gendered Intelligence, to the Transgender Equality Inquiry, courtesy of womansplaceuk.org. Marked up to make it clear their aim is the dismantle legal provisions which allow for same sex delivery of specific services.
Parliamentary Inquiries publish submissions and the ones to this inquiry are well worth a read. (You can find them here Hansard)
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation also fund another organisation “All About Trans” to enable them to employ a press officer and media trainer. They train “media professionals” from a number of different organisations. All About Trans website.
It is well worth looking at the media guidance emanating from groups like these. The definitions are highly contested and the re-shaping of language has significant implications for women and non-gender conforming children, of both sexes. You can see the resources they provide and who they work with here
After you look at the guidance it makes sense that they claim to have advised the BBC & Channel 4. Very noticeable increase in using “gender” where “sex” seems more appropriate. Also “assigned female at birth” & reductive references to women as “cervix–havers” etc seem to have emerged. There seems to be an excessive sense that female biology is inherently transphobic or that referencing women’s sex based experience as insulting to the trans community. This is, as an aside, not a good way to foster good relations between different protected characteristics. Further information below.
I first published this as a thread on twitter. Courtesy of some sleuthing by some mumsnet warriors I was sent some information on the founder of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. (No idea why it did not occur to me to start there!). Here goes:
I don’t share that just as some titillating story. Anyone following this debate needs to understand how BDSM (Bondage and Sado Masochism) figures in the fetishizing of sex stereotypes. Queer theory relies on maintaining women’s subordinate status so as not to ruin kink for our overlords! Well worth reading up on queer theory & Judith Butler, in particular. I recommend this. Dr Jane Clare Jones
So I singled out the Guardian because it was my daily paper for decades so the sense of betrayal runs deep. They are not alone but they do appear to be significantly compromised on this issue. (No disrespect to the women, working there, who are working to get women’s issues covered appropriately. I imagine it is not without some personal and professional cost).
Anyone watching Pink News coverage will be used to the lack of any balanced reporting from that outlet. Here is the CEO and his husband. Trustee for Mermaids Gender.
This does offer some clarity about why the media is out of step with the majority view by trying to erase biological reality. Women’s status in society is based on our sex. It is the epitome of privilege to identify into a marginalised group and then tell, your unwilling hosts they are YOUR oppressors. This is what women are being told when we are labelled “Cis” against our will and then told this means we have “cis-privilege”. Not enough privilege to resist a male-imposed nomenclature though!
I am unwaged so, if you are constrained from speaking out you can still play a part by supporting those of us free to speak out.
Documenting the biggest attack on women’s rights in my lifetime. Also fighting for the rights of LGB people. Nobody is born in the wrong body.
Thread above details links between Guardian Trustees and the funding of Gender Identity Ideology. Below is an expanded reflection on the first tweet. The Marie Dean case.
As a lifelong Guardian reader I expected it to be at the vanguard of fighting for women’s rights, instead it seems to be, wilfully, campaigning to disregard the privacy, dignity and safety, of the most vulnerable women in our midst.
One of the earliest warning signs, for me, was the coverage of the Marie Dean case. This was a piece of campaign journalism highlighting the vulnerability of a trans prisoner, who had been housed in the male estate. The article covered, a burglar, Marie Dean, whose Hunger Strike was staged to obtain a move to the female estate.
Women, who engaged with the article, immediately highlighted that the Burnley Local Press had provided more accurate coverage. The prisoner had broken into homes to engage in “sexual acts” involving the underwear of teenage girls. It total they had committed over 30 offences of voyeurism and violence. In addition they were found not guilty of a previous charge related to indecent videos of children. Only after a storm of protest was the article amended to include the sexual nature of the offences. Even now these are located far down the article and only after parallels are drawn to Bobby Sands, an IRA prisoner, who also went on Hunger Strike to secure concessions re his incarceration.
Sarah Ditum’s article, in The New Statesman, also asks pertinent questions about the nature of the Guardian piece and why it was calling for someone convicted of sexually motivated “burglaries” to be housed in the female estate. Marie Dean.
Here is more Guardian coverage of another Trans prisoner Tara Hudson
The article mentions that Tara had 6 years of reconstructive surgery but omits to detail that this did not involve any genital surgery. In fact Tara Hudson worked as a “shemale” escort, servicing male clients with a “seven inch surprise”. Tara Hudson has not applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate. This means they are not even entitled to the “legal fiction” that allows, limited, application of women’s sex based rights. A petition to have Tara moved to a women’s prison garnered over 150,000 signatures. Given the woeful coverage how many of those signatories knew the full context?
Tara’s case was also raised in the Houses of Parliament on a number of occasions.
Not one of them reflected on the danger, to women, of incarcerating a biological male, with a history of violence, in the female estate. Do I think Marie Dean/Tara Hudson are at a higher risk , than other males, in the prison system? Yes. Do I think the answer is to raise the risk for female prisoners? No. Clearly there are some specific vulnerabilities requiring due consideration by the Prison authorities. Unfortunately, at present, we are witnessing a blatant disregard for females prisoners, some of the most vulnerable in our community, because “gender identity/expression” is being privileged above the rights of women. Sex is a protected characteristic for a reason and this is being cast aside for political expediency.
We had already seen the consequences of housing biological males in the female prison estate. Here is another case which ended badly. Guardian coverage foregrounds that this was someone who was “manipulative” and that the risk assessment was at fault. Truth is that any policy, if it relies on a subjective sense of an internal identity, is vulnerable to just this kind of manipulation. Karen White.
I will leave you with these. First up a submission from the British Association of Gender Identity Professionals. This was a submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. It highlights the naivete of assuming nobody would take advantage of a policy which allows self-identified, male-bodied prisoners to access vulnerable women.
Our politicians were warned. Here is Francis Crook from the Howard League for Prison Reform:
And here is a BBC fact check of Fairplay For Women statistics which were based on an FOI request.
Some prisons don’t keep records. Some of the crimes are, we now discover, male crimes recorded as female crimes. Is this about predatory males who are assuming a transgender identity, or a problematic rate of sexual offences committed by transgender individuals? Either way we have a problem. Women should not be acceptable collateral damage while we figure this out.
The Media seem to be terrified of this “debate” which women were told to “skip”. The background to the Guardian Trustees gives us an insight into their stance. How many more media organisations are cognitively captured by this ideology?
You can support my work here. Only if you have a surplus and don’t prioritise me over crowdfunders for important legal cases.
Researching the spread of Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s sex based rights as well as gay rights. Particularly concerned about the harm done to young kids and teenage Lesbians / Gay boys.