Leicestershire NHS Trans Policy.

Featured

Here is the link to the policy produced by this NHS Trust. This one is dated September 2019. There is an updated one.

Transgender and Non Binary Patients – Supporting UHL Policy

You can access the full series on NHS “Transgender” policies at the link below:

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is, so far, the most authoritarian in respect of the way it mandates, both patients and staff, to comply with Gender Identity Ideology. We need a woman directly impacted to mount a legal challenge because the NHS must be forced to backdown.

I took the trouble to look at Leicestershire’s published policy on Single Sex Accommodation; which they are required to publish, monitor and have a system to report any breaches.

In that document the Trust include “sex” as a legally protected characteristic but add “gender” in brackets; even though that is not the Law. They claim the document abides by the provisions of The Equality Act but they do not address the issue of forcing women of faith to share mixed sex spaces or, indeed, the right of women to be held in single sex accommodation. This is despite producing a document that claims to be all about preserving single sex spaces. This is the NHS gaslighting women.

They know the actual law because they include the correct list of the protected characteristics within the same document. 👇

In the “transgender” policy they simply lie about the Law and replace “sex” with “gender”. The single sex accommodation policy is very easy to find on their website. It’s also easy to find the new Trans and Non-Binary policy from September 2022. I have downloaded that and will cover it in another post, after a quick look, I can only say it is even worse than the one I am covering today,

The advisor:

For the “Transgender” policy they are keen to advertise the input from a trans-identified male who sat on their Equality Advisory Group.

This would appear to be the Rebecca Shaw they consulted.

Shaw has a twitter account and posts about “trans day of visibility” and the debunking of autogynephilia. The old “my skirt lifted up”; happens to #GirlsLikeUs all the time. 😳

Vagina Monologues

Shaw also took part in a production of the Vagina Monologues and writes about it on their blog.

I like the “because I can” at the end. It has a certain sort of energy.

The Vagina Monologues were considered “transphobic” because these “new women” don’t have vaginas. Productions were halted because they were deemed to be “exclusionary”.

Now it seems zero vagina is not a bar to celebrating what you haven’t got! I like the “because I can!” at the end; has a certain type of energy.The first all male line up was in 2004. This despite the biological fact that none of these men have vaginas! Wherewere all my fellow Liberals, who leap on evidence of “cultural appropriation” when this performance took place.

One of the performers was Marci Bowers, a surgeon who performs the surgery known as “sex reassignment surgery”. Bowers is now the President of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. Another one was Andrea James who is infamous for waging a hate campaign against Michael Bailey: the author of The Man Who Would be Queen.

The Policy.

The policy mandates the use of the patient’s preferred pronouns and name and warns staff not to make assumptions based on “appearance”. It also cautions staff to use this language even if it goes against the family. The patient is to be asked where they would prefer to be cared for and if it is a female ward, and he is male, his wishes should be respected.

They provide more guidance on this checklist.

The staff are urged to be mindful of discrimination from staff, or other patients, and warned that they should not share details of the patients real sex except on a “need to know” basis. It would be interested to know how rigidly they apply this because symptoms, test results, and medication doses all are impacted by someone’s biological sex. For example female heart attacks are often missed because medical staff are used to the symptoms in males; women present differently. Some measures of organ function are such that a normal reading, for a male, would be dangerous in a female. There has already been one case of a trans-identified female losing a baby because clinicians did not think her admission, with stomach pains, could be labour pains; because she presented and was recorded as, a male.

There is the usual dictionary to educate staff on the new speak demanded by this ideology. As you can see, just like East Cheshire NHS Trust, they include transvestites under their definition of “trans”. I draw your attention to this because, once again, they all seem to ignore the condition of “transvestic fetishism” which is sexually motivated. These men get an erotic charge by wearing women’s clothes and it comes with a side order of boundary violations and a desire for women’s participation in their sexual thrills.

The Trust has a lengthy glossary that includes agender, gender fluid, gender queer and even neutrois. Later they seem to have got cold feet about including “transvestite” and “transsexual” and issue this warning to staff. 👇. Basically they have used the term in their own policy but heaven forfend their own staff follow their own terminology,

This policy is also littered with veiled threats about which hospital policies you may be in breach; should you deviate from this, imposed, ideology. Staff are warned that they could face charges of “gross misconduct” and, even criminal charges for misgendering. This is quite draconian and, likely, outwith the law.

They at pains to be clear they will use the patient’s preferred pronouns etc even with family members. I can certainly understand the position of staff on this one, for the patient, but it seems provocative to stoke conflict with family members. However, an ideological crusuade it is and they also offer this advice, about children, which seems of dubious legality to me:👇. The hospital is instructing staff to expressly go against the wishes of parents even if the child is not deemed “Gillick competent”.

Gillick Competence

The Trust also are on the alert for “spurious” arguments about “discomfort’ to mask their “transphobia”. 👇

I am not surprised at the thinly veiled contempt for women emanating from this policy. The Trust clearly know the legally protected characteristics because they are included in their single sex ward policy. Yet, in the “transgender” policy all of this is forgotten and the Trust resort to blatant lies. The protected characteristic is “SEX” but the Trust use “gender”

So what about the Equality Impact. assessment? “No detriment was identified”.

To add insult to injury, after ignoring the protected characteristic of “sex” they had a special note that all Equality Impact assessments must consider the “trans” experience.

References:

The authors reference the work of Stephen Whittle, from 2007. Whittle is a sex denialist activist having repudiated her own sex many years ago. I think they probably are referring to “Engendered Penalties” which I covered in my series on Whittle:

Stephen Whittle

They also reference the beleaguered charity Mermaids, The Gender Trust, who advised East Cheshire, and Christine Burns.

I will follow this up with the 2022, updated policy. At first glance that looks even worse but I see they have removed reference to “transvestites”.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 2)

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

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

NHS & Transgender: Series

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

Transgender support Policy

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

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

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

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

Part 1 covers The Gender Trust and man behind it.

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Advice given by The Gender Trust to the NHS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single Sex Facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parental Consent.

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

The Impact Assessment.

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

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

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

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Featured

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

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

NHS & Transgender: Series

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

Transgender support Policy

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

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

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

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

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

The Gender Trust

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

gendertrust.org.U.K.

The organisation. is a trans lobby organisation.

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

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

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

Thereafter no accounts were filed from at least 2015.

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

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

Michelle /Shelley Bridgeman.

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

Michelle Bridgeman

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

Dare To Be You

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

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

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

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

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

We are the Non-Binaries

Featured

This is a continuance of my series based on the book Trans Britain. I have struggled to whip up enough energy to tackle this chapter because of an innate resistance to narcissists. One of the people featured in this chapter, Meg-John Barker, is familiar to me as someone who was responsible for a bonkers document by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapists (B.A.C.P).

Here is an article about the document, from 2018, the author was one Dr Meg-John Barker.

Women are Vain Except In the North

Here is an excerpt which was later deleted. Does Barking mad Meg thinks Northern Working class women are men!

People who subscribe to this ideology confuse rejecting sex stereotypes with repudiating your sex. At the same time they claim they are in the business of dismantling these self same sexist notions.

Megan John Barker appears to be in a heterosexual relationship with Edward Lord who identifies as non-binary; which did not stop him joining the male only free masons. Here is Mx Lord.

You may remember Lord for making the single sex swimming, at Hampstead heath, mixed sex after launching a faux poll on twitter. A poll he claimed was open access after he he had pre-emptively blocked any women who were not the new inter-Sexional feminist types. Here is Private Eye on the matter.

Lol! Edward Lord O.B.E thinks he’s is dismantling the Patriarchy. These people are insane!

Meg also has a web-site providing a lot of free materials including her section on having multiple personalities or “Plurals”. Feel free to have a gander:

Meg Barker

Let me remind you that Meg was an an advisor to the British Psychological Society. An organisation that I covered in this series. You may remember the BPS advised it’s counsellors to use their client’s preferred title even if this was “slut”.

British Psychological Society

Meg has a number of “plurals” or “alters” including Fox,Jonathan, Robin, Jack, Max and Ara. I am rather relieved that she has given up counselling. I am quite disturbed that she was accredited and is a lecturer. Ben isn’t an alternative identity and is credited in this chapter.

Also included in this chapter is another person I had not encountered before.

Disturbingly Jos was employed by the Tavistock Gender Clinic. How much damage these deluded fools have done to children is incalculable.

This is how they define non-binary. No wonder they claim non-binary is the largest “trans” category; literally everyone is covered by this amorphous nonsense.

I am out of patience with this ahistorical nonsense; which I imagine is perfectly apparent. WOMEN’s parts were played by males because women were not allowed on stage in Shakespeare’s era. 👇. For many years the women who did tread the boards were associated with prostitutes and much maligned. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with the history of English theatre would be aware of this, but when your movement is a confection all you have is cultural appropriation and lying.

Ironically the very next paragraph cautions against the risk of “reading the present onto the past”.

After a detour to appropriate different cultures who found their own way to accommodate, usually male, homosexuals, the authors return to the British context to name our own pioneers. This was the first time I had come across the superbly named Nat Titman. (I realise my amusement is a tad immature. I blame the backdrop of a carry-on Christmas). Elan-Cane is the woman who wants to have sex obliterated on per’s documents. Sigh.

Despite the nonsensical nature of the NB movement it should no longer surprise anyone that our supine political class have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

The chapter ends with a list of demands which, bizarrely, includes access to medical transitioning for non-binary people. Luckily for the per-people some medical practitioners are ahead of the curve like the esteemed Dr Helen Webberley who still practices medicine in between her periods of suspension. Does this sound like good medical practice?

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

Psychological Impact: The Wives

Gendys Conference 1998.

This conference was set up by the Beaumont Society which began as a support group for men who cross-dress, for erotic purposes, and eventually set up a sister organisation (Beaumont Trust) to support the wives of these men. This is an article presented at their conference in 1998.

Diana opens by recognising the gains made by the “transgendered” individuals, in the last three decades of the twentieth century, but laments the lack of recognition of issues affecting those women who were damaged by their association with the cross-dressing men; though Diana refers to them as afflicted by “Gender Dysphoria”. Diana is keen to assure her audience that she is not intending to censure the men in this community.

G.P.s. were apt to dismiss the experience of the women, caught up in these marriages, who find they do not meet with the same compassion their “transgender” partner expects for himself. The impact on the wives resulted, in some 100 cases, in a need for psychiatric care. That’s an estimated 5% of those who contacted the Beaumont Trust. Likely to be the tip of the iceberg as any woman, who knew the origins of the Beaumont Trust, would be unlikely to seek their support. To give Diana credit she doesn’t fail these women and presents two horrific case studies to the Gendy’s Conference. How I would love to know the response from the men present.

Aitchison lays out the background: The wife’s become some sort of “muse” for their husbands. His intense interest in her stems, not from love, or desire, but from a kind of identity plagiarism or identity theft.

She has plenty of experience of the wives experiences, having taken calls from over 2000 women over ten years. The wives who contact her are overwhelmingly shocked, many she describes as “frightened”. Some of their husbands, once discovered, declare their intention to have surgery on their genitals.

For anyone who wants a detour to explore Peggy Rudd’s story, mentioned above, here is her book. I confess I am not tempted.

We can thank Trans Widow’s voices for challenging the dominant image of the “gender dysphoric” subject. Far from being prey to a debilitating condition many appear largely to be in the grip of a porn fuelled obsession. Their partners /exes are the collateral damage.

So, why are these wives so defeated and traumatised? This 👇 sounds like living with your stalker, but with no escape. These men are practising a sort of vampirism of the soul. Aitchison describes this mimicry as the commonest complaint from wives. It’s clearly not an aberrant minority.

Mrs A : Case Study 1

First is the example of Mrs A. She discovered her husband wearing her nightgown and impersonating her sleeping position. It was not his first offence, He ignored her efforts to complain, sulking if she attempted to remonstrate with him. She ends up deciding to say nothing.

Like many an abusive husband he tortures her with “mind games” and accuses her of being mentally ill. After this gaslighting she does have a severe breakdown. His quest for “identity” stripped her of hers, because her husband had appropriated it, she was an unwilling “muse”.

I am no expert on trans widows but I have seen enough parallels with the treatment of domestic abuse victims (which these women clearly are). One of the common complaints is how galling is the assumption that only the weak would fall prey to these men. It’s the same old “Why didn’t she leave him?”. As Aitchison points out the women don’t realise what is happening and by then they may be more entrapped psychologically and, perhaps, financially. How many of these men wait until their wife has children and is financially dependent before unleashing their paraphilia on their wife?

This comparison took me by surprise. The breaking down of the wife’s will is compared to the techniques for breaking the spirit of a wild horse.

The wives may not even know they are being subjected to this “shadowing technique” , I am assuming the husbands are not so vile as to deploy this as a conscious strategy to break their wives’ spirit. Perhaps I am wrong and they know exactly what they are doing.

This is a form of coercive control likely undetectable to the victim let alone an outside observer. Even worse he may look like a devoted spouse and she unhinged and possibly unkind.

Barbara’s Story: Case Study 2

Barbara’s story if even more stark. Notably, Diana is keen to point out that Barbara is anxious to make it clear this was atypical behaviour. Maybe the ones writing to trans widows voices are atypical or may be these are the ones who have managed to escape?

Barbara’ story gets darker. Her husbands behaviour emerged after the birth of her second child and only four years into her marriage. He also appropriated her night clothes and informed her there was nothing she could do about it, she would remain married to him for another 31 years despite the end of their sex life,

His domestic abuse wasn’t confined to the psychological abuse he was also violent to both her and her son. He displayed a different side to his daughter thereby ensuring he ruptured the bond between mother and daughter. Naturally he also became preoccupied by pornography.

In another echo of domestic abuse scenarios he made sure to cut his wife off from any potential support avenues. After lying to her sister she would be estranged from her for thirty years. He made sure to perform his role, as a loving husband, in public whilst being cold and distant in private. At the same time he insisted on wifely obedience from Barbara. Of course he was a transvestic fetishist, something he concealed from their children. Some of these men are being platformed by women’s rights organisations to the dismay of Trans Widows.

Eventually, once the children had left home she broke down and finally realised she could leave the marriage. Fearful of him she signed over her share of the marital assets but he still sent threatening messages to her and continued to disparage her as “mentally ill”.

He remains in her daughters life as a grandfather and she has discovered he is taking hormones. Barbara has lost any close bonds with her children, one too damaged and one living in ignorance of her fathers true nature.

Barbara now helps other women in her situation. Many are bewildered and shocked and some discover their husbands secret life after thirty years.

Not all the women who make contact are middle-aged some young women make contact. Like Barbara they have young children. At the same time they fear their experience will not be understood or believed.

I suspect the Beaumont Trust was not likely to have developed comprehensive support for the women subjected to abuse by cross-dressing spouses. The Trust was set up to support wives to, in turn, prop up their husbands and is predicated on their remaining with their husbands.

Original is here:

Wives Experience

For any one going through something similar. There is an organisation available. You will find many similar accounts on this website. I will be adding a post about Elizabeth Morris, wife of “transsexual” Jan Morris, but I wanted to add this post about the wive’s experience, though I can’t draw a direct comparison to the state of the Morris marriage.

Trans Widows Voices

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.

My Substack

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

£10.00

Stephen Whittle: Q & A: Gender

Featured

Future of Gender: Part 3 : Q & A

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

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

Stephen Whittle

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

The Future of Gender

The first question relates to this book by David Valentine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On “tran women” she is even more blunt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or the Burnesha of Albania. 👇

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

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

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

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

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

Stephen Whittle: Future of Gender

Featured

Part 1

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

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

Stephen Whittle

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

The Future of Gender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

Stephen Whittle: 2022

Featured

This is an interview that Stephen Whittle gave two weeks ago. I am going to cover it as part of my series on Whittle because it contains a very different narrative than the one I have heard recounted before. The rest of the series is here: 👇

Stephen Whittle

The interviewer begins by asking Whittle to share their back story. Whittle paints a picture of two parents who were immediately “affirming” and in fact had always known. This was the way her mum is alleged to have responded. This was in 1973.

While coming out to her mother her father walked in the room and he too was completely unfazed. Again, I am just going to point out this was in 1973.

Contrast this with what Whittle said about his father in this, 2007, interview in the Guardian:

2007 Interview

Or, consider what Whittle had to say about her mother, seven years ago, at Durham University.

You can find this quote at 12 minutes 48 seconds into this YouTube. (Which I will do a piece on because it’s full of WTF moments).

{I am pretty sure I have heard Whittle talking about years of estrangement from her parents and I will add if I can verify and locate the source.}

Stephen Whittle at Durham University

For the next bit I could use some Lesbians who were at the Women’s Liberation Conference in Edinburgh to comment. Whittle describes realising they didn’t fit in when the women circle danced naked in the evening; to much audience laughter. Whittle explains it was in that moment they knew this was not who they were. The decision to come out as a man was made and, the way Whittle tells it, all the feminist /Lesbian women were unsurprised and supportive; rallying round and finding “him” men’s clothes to pass on. One of the women even knew a “transsexual” they could introduce to Whittle; this was Carol Steele who I covered here:

Carol Steele: Trans Britain (Part 5)

This meeting proved fortuitous and together Whittle and Steele set up a support group for “trans” people this would become Press For Change. Whittle talks a lot about how they were involved in the Gay Switchboard and how they had fantastic support from Gay men. (As we will see in my next piece she, and the T more generally, repaid this by denying same sex attraction was based on the SEX of the person. This is betrayal of the highest order).

Whittle then talked about what tremendous support she had from Manchester Metropolitan University (then a Polytechnic), her employer, to socially “transition” at work. There appears to have been zero opposition at work, according to Whittle’s account. The interviewer then prompts Whittle to talk about the hard times (lest things get too upbeat) and Whittle duly obliges, revealing all the times they lost employment when forced to show their birth certificate. She also claims this was often accompanied by accusations of paedophilia and maintains this is what happens today when anyone expresses support for “trans children”. I am going to go out on a limb here and say these are prepared taking points.

Whittle describes how they studied the law, at night school, to enable her continue the journey to “transition” by living as a “man” while a student. She also realised the law could be used to further the strategic aims of the “trans” community. They looked for suitable test cases and Whittle talks us through the various legal victories, obtained by Press For Change, and some of the losses. Whittle failed to obtain the right to be recorded as the “Father” for the four children had by her wife, Sarah. At the same time, Whittle explained they always “spun” the losses as victories; which is an ongoing strategy. See this comment on Stonewall by Akua Reindorf 👇. This is from a report into Essex University who had de-platformed female speakers with “gender critical” beliefs. Essex University were found to have followed guidance from Stonewall, who train organisations, not on the law, as it is, but how they wish it to be.

Even more astonishingly, about the 30 minute mark, Whittle makes this claim either without a shred of self-awareness or as a deliberate falsehood.

In 1996 London Pride were persuaded to include the T and Whittle talks about taking the children who were entertained by a trans-identified male, Fay Presto, who was also a magician. (You can find fascinating documentaries about Fay Presto on YouTube). In 1997 they had their first stall at the Labour Party conference and Whittle shows a picture which includes Mo Mowlem and Cherie Booth (QC and wife of Tony Blair).

Whittle then describes how she set up a network of FTM (Female to Male) “trans” people and began sending out a regular newsletter which reached 4000 people before it ceased. The BBC also began showing documentaries about FTM people, called The Decision Make Me a Man. Whittle describes them as documentaries “we” made which suggests collaboration with the BBC commenced at least as early as the 90’s.


Next up Whittle reveals his psychiatrist, who was assessing his suitability for medical transition, told him he had not been approved. Whittle leaves the session in despair but tells this tale about what happened next. 👇

This anecdote serves as a useful jumping off point for Whittle to criticise the gatekeeping / safeguarding involved in a medical pathway and call it fundamentally flawed while promoting “trans” led health care. It is also an opportunity to promote the Manchester “Gender Identity”service that no longer requires any psychiatric assessment to access the medical pathway.

There follows a revealing discussion about Press For Change working with Government departments, Civil Servants and Ministers to draft the Gender Recognition Act. Whittle encounters some questioning from a Civil Servant and in walks David Lammy, the Minister responsiblefor getting the GRA into law. Here Lammy is painted as giving Whittle carte blanche.

Now to the “Culture Wars”

I typed this as I was watching and my fury is only matched by my incredulity at Whittles disingenuousness, which, at times, tips over into brazen, outright, lies.

The interviewers brings up the shocking “anti-trans” backlash happening in the U.K. This is how a defence of women’s rights and against the sterilising of children is framed. (Starts from 40 minutes in). Whittle, correctly, identifies the moves to try to allow any man to self declare a woman, and vice versa, as the trigger for women’s resistance. Whittle cites Ireland as the exemplar; and claims there have been no problem; which is wilful ignorance on her part. (See Barbie Kardashian).

Whittle also claims the “links” between women’s groups and the “Proud Boys” are only now becoming clear. (This is a reference to a alleged member of the right wing, Proud Boys, group who had a selfie taken with Posey Parker who had no idea who he was. Plenty of politicians have been caught out this way). Whittle believes the government are stoking a culture war to distract from issues of corruption, which they may well be, but there are plenty of left wing, trade unionist, women leading this fight. Whittle ignores those.

She then goes onto mock women’s fears about men in our intimate spaces; adding the threat that if we don’t want men in our intimate spaces we can have women, like her, back in the female loos. Now she is attacking crowdfunding which has allowed women to legally, defend our rights. What a patronising ar**! She is now saying naive people have been persuaded to give money to causes they don’t properly understand! Now she is mis-characterising the argument saying women think children are being given sex changes at the age of 12! Actually we oppose children being given puberty blockers at age 10. Fact! Teenage girls are getting double mastectomies in the U.K. Granted the age range is not as low as in the United States, where cases of thirteen years old girls getting these surgeries have been documented. Now he is alleging three million pounds have been poured into these legal cases and nobody knows where the money has gone! (Is there some confusion here with the Good Law Project who have been criticised for their fundraising strategy?)

Now she is acknowledging the social contagion element of females in flight from their sex but claims that the Gender Clinics would see these girls and explain why they are not “trans”. This after she has argued that “we know who we are” and psychological assessments are not necessary.

Jesus! Whittle is now acknowledging there are category errors happening with girls thinking they are trans and that she wants to be able to have that conversation but the hysteria around the topic means they are not allowed to! #NoDebate came from your side Whittle!

Now Whittle is disputing claims of issues with trans-ID males and patterns of criminality. She claims there has only been one incident of a pre-op “transwoman” exposing their penis to women and it was someone having a psychotic breakdown, who was mortified by what they had done. Anyone wanting to challenge Whittle on this can find numerous examples, just in the U.K , at this site 👇.

Trans Crime U.K.

This is just a snapshot. No doubt the “trans” community will claim some are not really “trans” but these are their rules. Steve Wright, for example, was a transvestite. That now comes under the trans umbrella. See also “We are who we say we are”.

Whittle then tells a tale of a “trans woman” friend who gets up at 3am to sort their make-up out and then uses this as an argument to say no men would go to all that trouble to access women’s spaces. Also the “trans woman” is more scared than you are! We are just at the outright lying stage now. The trans-identifying male is to be believed when he is too scared to use male spaces but women are not to be believed when we say we don’t want mixed sex facilities. Whittle also pleads with women to recognise that “trans women” are great allies to feminists.

We are nearly at the end and Whittle now suggests we are at the point where both sides can start to talk. He mentions the spectre of potential violence against the “trans” community by right wing men with guns or a “trans” kid being provoked into “doing something stupid” . Whittle also claims to have reached out to people he knows “on the other side” claiming he is concerned there will be another Jo Cox incident; she then specifically invokes Eddie Izzard as a visible and vulnerable person. What Whittle is hoping is that she can reach out to make a secret deal with “moderate” voices.

No more back room deals!

I hope none of the feminists, who Whittle is approaching, don’t get blinded by flattery: {“You are one of the reasonable voices” } and think they can give away some women’s rights to appease the likes of Whittle; #NoPenisInOurTime.

Questions from the audience.

First question is what can business do to support “trans” colleagues.

Whittles answer is they can remember we exist and support trans day of remembrance for all the dead trans people, who have been murdered (None, in the U.K. is the answer for the last few years). Cue loads of hyperbole about trans murder rates using global data. (Facts below) She also claims that hardly any companies remember to note this day which is another egregious lie.

TRANS MURDER MONITORING

Whittle is asked about the conflict between women’s rights and trans rights. Gives an answer about knowing what it’s like to be a teenage girl and how she wouldn’t dream of using women’s spaces, which is hardly the point, but then says “trans women” also don’t want men in women’s spaces and have a lot in common with you if you just sit down and talk. She also makes a veiled threat that, if we don’t want men in our spaces she could start using them and “you wouldn’t want that”.

Whittle seems to be quite keen to signal a willingness to have dialogue and claims that her side are willing to come together to talk but the “other side” don’t turn up unless it’s to shout “penis” at a trans woman. Again this is blatant lying. Who was it who coined #NoDebate? How many discussions did Stonewall manage to stop by refusing to turn up and allowing the BBC to claim discussion could not go ahead “without balance”?

A man who is from an organisation for the Supporters of Sexual violence (in Brighton) claims all the people in the sector are “trans-inclusive” but there are problems with “grifters” using crowd funding to litigate against this approach. He goes on to accuse “cis, lesbian” women actively trying to close down sexual violence services. {I think he is talking about a case asking if a rape crisis service, in Brighton, would provide a single sex group, in addition to the trans inclusive and the trans only service. She was refused}.

Whittles answer is that, as a group, they have to be clever and, by implication, outsmart the legal challenges. I will cover Whittle’s other talk, which I linked above, in another blog.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

Women’s Equality Party: 5

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the fourth post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the rest of the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017; which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel called to examine witnesses and come to a view on a complex, moral, conundrum. 👇

These were the witnesses called before the panel:

Part one in this series covered the founding of the W.E.P and it’s financial backers; part two the moral maze witnesses, Fae and Caspian and part three covered Stephen Whittle. Part 4 covered Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans and her subsequent removal from her post, in the Women’s Equality Party, which culminated in the resignation of her party membership.

This post will cover the final deliberations of the Moral Maze Panel which starts from 33 minutes.

Michael Buerk, the presenter, summarises the contributions of the witnesses. He begins with Jane Fae, a trans-identified male who describes himself as an “accidental activist”. Jane Fae first claimed that no “transgender” children had any medical intervention until age 16, but, under questioning, was forced to concede that younger children younger are being put on puberty blockers. In the U.K this can start as young as age 10. Fae then claimed this only delayed puberty; a discredited claim. The truth is that 98% of children progress to cross sex hormones once they have their puberty blocked. It’s worth reminding yourself what Marci Bowers had to say about these children. Marci Bowers is a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs the surgeries known as “sex reassignment surgeries”. Marci was President Elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) when he made this statement👇. Marci also noted that, for males, the growth of the penis will be stunted which limits the options for future genital surgery.

Fae then used the argument that we give teenagers contraceptive pills and he claims this is equivalent to the hormone treatment given to “transgender teens”. Additionally he says going through a natural puberty also has an adverse impact and makes later surgeries more necessary. Finally Fae said that men like him wished they had not gone through a male puberty. Note that Fae married and had his own (biological) two children; something that will be denied to the children he is so keen to medicalise. These children are, in my view, being sacrificed because of men like Fae’s retrospective wish fulfilment.

Claire Fox is asked for her assessment of this witness and describes Fae as compelling, but disingenuous, for not recognising the role of widespread propagation of gender ideology to children and the promotion of unreality. This context is important to consider before we even get to the medical interventions we are giving to children. Because we are constantly talking to children about gender, particularly in schools, we end up in a situation where the normal confusions of childhood are examined through the prism of “gender”.

Matthew Turner says he didn’t know what he thought before he came on the programme but :

He finishes by saying that Jane Fae and Stephen Whittle helped him to come to the belief that critics are exaggerating the peril of people making these decisions. (It’s worth listening to his tone, throughout, I found him deeply patronising and antagonistic)

I believe, far from being undecided, he had already determined to listen selectively. He fails to reference the treatment of children, or to notice Fae’s attempts to mislead the panel. He is also grossly ill informed about how much care is taken before a prescription is issued. (My son was referred on the 7th November and the drugs arrived before Christmas. As it was during the height of the pandemic I am not even confident he had a face to face appointment). It is also a bit of a worry that this man has moved from the Arts sector to the NHS.

Ann McElvoy is concerned about the lack of an evidence base for gender reassignment which she describes as “slight”. Because we have not performed these surgeries on many people, in the past, we simply don’t know enough. She concedes that opponents may express strong views about the risk but, conversely proponents have a tendency to minimise the risk. McElvoy was interested in Jane Fae’s views on the age of consent, for these treatments; for McElvoy it was reminiscent of arguments about the age of criminal responsibility. Fae seemed to settle on the age of sixteen for irreversible interventions which is, McElvoy points out, is also age of peak teenage confusion.

Michael Buerk then asks Mona Siddiqui about the teenage girls who had hormones and double mastectomies and now regret their surgeries. As James Caspian noted these girls claim they had had these surgeries whilst also dealing with mental health issues. Siddiqui claims that she was not convinced by James Caspian because he would answer her question and say what the right reasons were for “transition”. She then repeats her belief that nobody would do this lightly and she also didn’t like it being swept up into mental health issues. Mona Siddiqui comes from the perspective that she has no right to question someone else’s identity and how they feel, just because they might change their mind. She then says there is a lot of things about this we don’t understand but we should not sit in judgment on how people feel.

Claire Fox then brings up the spectre of allowing self-declaration. Furthermore allowing people to change their birth certificate, to reflect the sex you are not, is “post-factual madness”. She also brings up the increasing numbers of young people identifying out of their sex and she believes we are encouraging this. Mona Siddiqui again claims nobody would self-identify as the opposite sex lightly. Sigh. This is clearly already happening, especially in prisons. Here are two letters from prisoners about sex offenders “jumping on the trans bandwagon”.

Ann McElvoy says it’s a tricky situation to balance the risk of regret with denying people the right to live as they wish.

Matthew Turner then says the Fae and Whittle were very reassuring but he believes Caspian and Brunskell-Evans revealed their prejudices and were treating this condition as “pathological”. He also accused Caspian of wanting to deny everyone the ability to “transition”. Saying that either he was lying to the panel or lying to himself. (Conveniently ignoring that Caspian and spent ten years working in a private gender clinic and had recommended “transition” for literally hundreds of patients). His hostility to both James Caspian and Heather Brunskell-Evans was on display in this intervention.

There follows a bizarre discussion where Stephen Whittle, a biological female, saying she would not use female spaces was assumed, by Buerk, to solve the issue of men accessing women’s spaces. 😳. This is an example of a time when using terminology like “trans man” confuses the thought processes. McElvoy doesn’t point out the problem with Buerk’s framing but she does ger to the heart of the conflict with feminists; the issue not your “identity”, per se, but the rights and responsibilities that are assumed to flow from that identity. This is literally a competition for moral and literal space.

Final words.

Ann McElvoy: It’s really about what rights and entitlements flow from you identifying as one thing or another; that’s not something you can fudge by saying we all have rights. There is a competition (I would say conflict) over moral and literal spaces.

Matthew Turner : We should trust people to make the right choices for themselves. (Turner’s answer ignores the impact on others).

Mona Siddiqui: I think should all of us should be less dogmatic and have the moral courage to admit that we don’t get this but that it is better to err on the side of empathy. (The #BeKind cop out.)

Claire Fox: The worlds gone mad and we should be at least able to challenge it when we think people are not speaking the truth.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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

£10.00

Women’s Equality Party: 4

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the fourth post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

Part two covered Fae and Caspian and part three covered Stephen Whittle. I decided to devote an entire another post to Heather.

Buerk introduces the final witness, Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, a research fellow at Kings College London, author of the book Transgender Children and young people (image below) Buerk adds that Heather is a feminist campaigner and then launches into questions,

Buerk notes that the “trans lobby” calls Brunskell-Evans a “terf” , a trans-exclusionary, radical feminist and adds “What does that mean and why don’t they like you?”.

Heather responds by explaining that this term is perjorative and that she is not alone in attracting the slur, “terf”; it is applied to anyone not accepting the “trans” doctrine. She also points out that she does not exclude anyone and is comfortable with people claiming the identity of “trans”. Heather also points out that the book 👈 is jointly edited by Professor Michele Moore.

(I have seen Moore talk live and also her WPUK talk. If you have not seen this talk, by Moore, I can highly recommend it : 👇

Michele Moore

Mona Sidddiqui then asks “Why do you think so many, liberal minded, progressive, young people are buying into the “transgender doctrine” as you put it?” (Loaded question). Heather responds that she actually finds transgender doctrine reactionary, that both girls and boys should be allowed to dress how they wish but what we are witnessing is a new social narrative around gender non conforming behaviour that says if a boy likes to wear dresses he is literally a girl. Mona then asks what if it is more than that and the boy says he doesn’t feel right in this body? Brunskell-Evans says a genuinely progressive society a boy should be allowed to display gender non-confirming behaviour in the body he is in. These children have always existed but we are developing a new language to describe them. (Siddiqui repeatedly tries to interrupt and speak over Heather but she persists.

Mona now asks :

Heather can be heard disagreeing with the claim that the phenomena of the trans-identity emergin in the last ten, twenty years. The “transgender” child is most definitely a recent invention. I think Professor Siddiqui is confusing people with disorders of sexual development with people who identify as “trans”.

Heather agrees that people need rights but Siddiqui makes the counter argument that Heather is constraining those right by saying a boy who likes to wear a dress should not reassign his body. Heather responds by saying we should be allowed to be as we wish without making it a problem of the male body or the female body; Telling a small child that there is something not quite right with its body it’s actually got the brain of the other sex creates a harmful narrative and it’s actually abusive.

Now Matthew Turner. This question would have been an excellent question to ask of the “trans” identifying witnesses but, instead, he asks it of Heather. (Turner is the CEO of the NHS Confederation now which is an interesting move from the Royal Society of Arts.)

Turner gets Heather to agree with the premise of alleviating human suffering and then makes this, astonishing, pronouncement. The policing of women’s bodies and the rigidity of beauty standards, for women, are worse now than I have ever known. He has no idea!

Heather interjects to point out that we always make choices within social norms.

Ah, I see where he was going with this. He thinks that the social norms don’t dictate that men have to be “masculine” and women “feminine” so if people still feel their body doesn’t align with their “gender” surely they should be allowed to align their body with their “gender”. Yet he doesn’t see that both boys and girls are being told that if they don’t conform to the Barbie or Ken mode of being they might just be “born in the wrong body”. He has no idea!

Heather responds to say that the problem with this debate is people are categorised and pro-trans or anti-trans. Heather emphasises that Adult’s should be free to claim a personal identity but the problem is we are extending this to children. We need a public debate and an examination of the “science” ; especially claims that there are male brains and female brains.

Matthew then asks her to specify the age at which a person can make these choices. Heather refuses to provide an age. She reiterates that the kind thing to do is to allow the child to experiment with their identity but it’s incumbent on adults, who are responsible for the child’s welfare not to go along with the narrative (that they could be born in the wrong body).

For the views expressed in this interview Heather was reported to the Women’s Equality Party and subjected to a three month long investigation. Here is the list of allegations.

The identity of the complainants is kept confidential but one member did comment on a Women’s Place U.K. meeting at which Heather spoke. Many of us have had abuse from this individual. Toni is a late transitioning, married, heterosexual man; who calls himself a “Lesbian”. Something tells me he is an Absolutely Genuine Person or AGP, for short.

I assume this is the WPUK event in question.

Heather at WPUK

The Women’s Equality Party upheld the complaints and stripped Dr Brunskell-Evans of her party role. She left the party as many of us did. You can read her own account here 👇 and you will also find a wealth of information on her website.

Open Letter

I will do a round up of the panel’s deliberations in a final post.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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

£10.00