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.


Women’s Equality Party: 3

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the third 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 in this one I will cover Stephen Whittle. I had intended to get to Heather’s contribution in this one but my ghast was so flabbered by Whittle I decided to devote the entire another post to her. I will give Brunskell-Evans a post to herself.

Stephen Whittle is a trans-identified female, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, and quite a key figure in the promulgation of “transgender” ideology, in the U.K. Unsurprisingly they have cropped up quite a few times in my research. You can read my previous coverage here: 👇

Stephen Whittle

Whittle is introduced by the presenter, Michael Buerk, who then precedes to talk about males and females having different brain architecture and he asks Whittle how this squares with “his” claim that gender is a choice. Whittle begins by saying that “if you had said twenty years ago it was impossible to tell who was a man or a woman, everybody would have agreed with you”.{I don’t think this is what Whittle meant to say, from the subsequent comments I am going to assume that she means people would have agreed male and female brains are indistinguishable.}. Whittle continues by talking about new research that has discovered that the “transgender” brain is more aligned with the sex they identify “with”. In fact the jury is very much out on this point. The early post-mortem research failed to control for homosexuality, the impact of neuroplasticity, on a developing brain, or even the impact of the cross sex hormones. For an excellent thread on studies re brain sex, this thread is well worth a read and a follow, if on twitter.

Brain Sex

Leaving that to one side Whittle then says the brain sex argument is irrelevant to them because, as a lawyer, their only concern is with people’s rights.

Buerk hands over to Claire Fox who begins by expressing her bemusement at the male singer, Sam Smith, who is now a they/them and seems to associate females with sex (ist) stereotypes. This is a sample of Sam Smith’s idea of what makes him partly male and partly female.

Claire asks if Whittle understands why feminists are concerned that transgenderism is defining women by the trappings of femininity, which many women gave up a long time ago. Whittle responds with “Absolutely” and expands the answer below: 👇

This really doesn’t answer the question, to me. There argument is that there is a distinction between gender and gender expression, for “trans” people. This makes sense if we talk about how your sex doesn’t mean to have to dress like Ken /Barbie. Yet, for many “trans” people it seems perfectly clear they think “gender expression” = “gender”. This is what Sam Smith is doing. Yet we are also told we should not make assumptions about someone’s “gender” by the way they express themselves. This is why we have the acronym 0ET (zero effort trans) where a man with a beard has no shame about going on dating apps as a “Lesbian”.

Claire Fox then asks Whittle about the rapist Martin Pontin, who raped two sixteen year old girls, then identified as Jessica and was moved to a women’s prison as well as male pupils identifying as “girls” and demanding/ being alllowed to use facilities with girls.

Here is some background on Pontin. 👇. This is a picture of him.

As of 2022 it now emerges that Pontin has been granted a gender recognition certificate. Once again he got a GRC under the existing process, not the proposed self-identification route. This is what we must repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

This was Whittle’s response. Notice even Whittle can’t bring herself to say “she” and “Jessica”.

Whittle then proceeds to say countries who have introduced self-id have not seen any problems, listing Ireland, Malta, Norway and Denmark.

On Ireland 👇

Barbie Kardashion

On Norway

Christine Ellingen

It’is worth noting that Malta has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the world, not even allowing them to save the mother’s life.

In Denmark, in 2017, rape victims had to prove they had resisted to stand a chance of a conviction because rape was not defined by the absence of consent, there had to be additional, demonstrable “force”. Spousal rape was also only criminalised in 2013. Also, I give you Ibi-Pippi, legally a “woman”

Whittle finishes with this.😳 A cavalier disregard for the safety of women and girls. Heinous.

Ann McElvoy: “As a trans man are their any rights that you think you wouldn’t have, or shouldn’t have, that a biological man would have?”

Whittle can’t think of any rights he shouldn’t have, or doesn’t have that a biological man has. She then adds that they wouldn’t, at this stage of life, use women’s spaces. This is because they recognise that “whilst I may not be a man in the same way as my brothers I am no longer a woman in the same way as the women who use women only spaces”.

Ann McElvoy Do you think therefore that you should back off from that argument because one of the contested areas, particularly with feminists, or the most vocal feminists, has been about that space and who has the right to occupy that space, whether it is a lavatory or a changing room, places that are reserved for one or the other sex. You are challenging that idea and, at the same time, you are saying well I would actually stand back from it. I don’t think it’s right for me”

Whittle then decides there’s a huge difference between women only spaces and lavatories and changing rooms and, then seems a bit rattled “Oh for Christ’s sake we should all be able to go to the toilet in peace and quiet and privacy” . She then says all we need are decent locks and respect. After this Whittle turns the argument to focus on gender neutral facilities and claims they have been introduced at Manchester Metropolitan University and there have been no issues.

McElvoy then points out the inherent difficulty with self-identification because if you declare yourself to be the opposite sex you are mandating that everyone else has to go along with it. She then asks if Whittle sees any space for disagreement?

Whittle starts by saying they accept disagreement having lived with it for the whole of her life. She also says that she is not telling other people how to live their lives. (Hollow Laugh).

Whittle closes by saying that one of the problems is that “this has been medicalised before” (I assume she means being “trans” should not depend on hormones and surgeries).She also agrees with James (Caspian) that being “trans”is not diagnosable, it’s something that people do. Except Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything. It’s a shame the interview ended there because there is a lot to unpack here.

Firstly Whittle is imposing their way of life on the whole of society. She is in favour of any man identifying as a “woman” irrespective of surgical status (that’s the bit about “medicalising” gender dysphoria). She is also mandating that we accept those men in our spaces. That’s her dictating to women to accept dick in our spaces. Many of us don’t want any men in our spaces irrespective of their bodily modifications but Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything, other than declare your “identity”.

I will break off here and cover Heather Brunskell-Evans’ contribution and the panel conclusions in my next piece.

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.


Women’s Equality Party: R.I.P

What a waste!

I still have my membership card for the Women’s Equality Party proudly displaying Founding Member number 303. A man would become member 4111 and boast about it on his blog. He will be one of the reasons the party is destined to fail.

This is he, posing with his wife; face painted with rainbows and wearing a Stonewall badge. Jon is a methodist minister and some big name in computer coding. He has three sons.

Jon even appears in W.E.P’s very first policy document. This is him, on page 13. Right out the gate the Women’s Equality Party was branding itself as a party that aimed to help all people.

This is what he said on his coming out blog on becoming a member.

Jon certainly put his money where his mouth was and became quite a large donor to the W.E.P. 19 donations totalling nearly £120,000.

Data from the Electoral Commission. Link attached to the search here and file attached 👇

Electoral Commission


Fast forward to 2018 and Sweet announced that one of his three sons is now his “daughter”

However, I am not ascribing blame to Skeet’s belief he has a “trans daughter”, for W.E.P policy. This is from their very first policy document. Seems they were always going to betray women in favour of the be-penised kind.

Right at the outset the party was compromised by the involvement of the Luvvie class. Back in 2015 I didn’t realise I needed to check a party for woman knew what a woman was. Now, when I look back at the celebrity endorsements, I realise it was doomed from the start. First up: Emma Thompson.

Emma Thompson is full on “Trans Women are Women”.

Here are a few more celebrity endorsements including Jack Monroe and Emma Watson.

Here is Emma talking to trans-activist Paris Lees.

Here is Monroe on coming out as “transgender” joking with James/Juno Dawson.

The modern leadership has gone down the pronouns in bio route. Here are the deputy leaders.

As I said I am not blaming Jon Skeet and his trans-identifying son for this parlous state of affairs but I don’t think he is going to help women’s rights anytime soon if he takes his cues from Julie Serano. This is from his blog. 😳

At some point I will blog on whipping girl but here is a sample.

Those of you following the W.E.P debacle may already know that they recently voted, at their sparsely attended conference, to support the idea that a man can self-declare his “gender”. A disastrous idea for women and girls. Ex-leader, Sophie Walker, penned an open letter, to the new leader (Mandu Reid) , pleading with her not to take this step.

Here is the letter: 👇

She was ignored.

You can watch Mandu Reid performing to camera all the reasons she believes Self-ID is the right policy. She manages to regurgitate most of the talking points of trans-activists. She appears deeply influenced by her own experience of racism and she thinks a women’s movement is a movement, for equality, more generally. Women’s movements fail the moment they fail to centre women and are not confident enough to advocate purely and simply for women. Reid, instead, seems to see W.E.P as a vehicle to advance all her own pet projects. It’s unconscionable to use women’s labour, and money, in this way. She is concerned about the polarisation on politics and sees women campaigning for our rights, as a sex class, as stoking division. She has bought into the TRA language and ideology. There is no way back for W.E.P.

Mandu Reid on Self-ID

Here are a couple of clips

In a turn out of only 138 (Compare that to the 1800 for Filia) the motion was passed. No vote was allowed for the wider membership which suggests, to me, they were not confident it has wide support. W.E.P has revealed itself to be an un-democratic and elitist organisation.

I will return to have a look at the W.E.P and cover their expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans, former W.E.P. spokesperson on Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG); after she appeared on the moral maze.

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.


Kate Hutchinson : Trans Britain. (Part 7)

Kate Hutchinson

Kate is a trans activist based in Wales and active in a number of different “Trans” organisations. He has also played bass guitar in a number of bands.

Hutchinson’s narrative is familiar. He claims he “knew” at age 5 that he was different because he wanted to play hopscotch with the girls. He says he was told to leave the girls alone and play with the boys. Interesting use of “tingling” in this account, an odd word choice.

During his teenage years he claims he had to suppress his feminine persona and try to perform “boy mode” by joining the army cadets and playing rugby. This is a common way that men explain away their background of hyper-masculine pursuits. Turns out he is also a gamer. These facts are in danger of undermining the narrative so must be described as ,societally imposed, repression.

He only “came out” a decade ago after finally seeing more positive coverage in 2012. He makes an unverifiable claim that he had tried to present his “authentic self” earlier but transphobia made him retreat into the closet.

Hutchinson says he became aware of “trans” people with the eighties documentary on Julia Grant, Jan Morris and Christine Jorgensen. He credits Paris Lees with giving the courage to present his true self to the world, sometimes, at other times, it’s a prostituted “trans” character from Paddington Green.

His interest in music led him to adopt various styles of music that allowed him to play around within his “gender” in socially acceptable ways that provided camouflage.

He takes us on a tour of various musicians that challenged “gender stereotypes” in movements like the New Romantics, Goths and glam rock. The eighties were a time for playing around with and rejecting the straight jacket of sex stereotypes. Hutchinson saw it as an opportunity to “hide in plain sight” .

Unfortunately, he tells us, that era ended and he could no longer do this publicly and was reduced to (cross) “dressing” in the safety of his own home.

He names a few artists who have come out as “trans” and is particularly delighted that one stole an award meant for a female artist.

His public pronouncements are evidenced on his social media account and on some of the presentations available on YouTube. This one was given to an organisation purported to be about conservation. He is introduced by a staff member who has pronouns in her bio on her linkedin. You can find it here:

Kate Hutchinson

In this presentation Hutchinson makes liberal use of the discredited suicide and murder statistics; which make a regular appearance to propagate the idea this is a persecuted minority. He rattles off a list of people who come under the “trans” umbrella which includes, cross-dressers (transvestic fetishists, in old money), bigender, non-binary, gender fluid etc. He also talks about transphobia and shares some, alleged, incidents from his own life. I am extremely skeptical about this because I have seen this recur in “trans-narratives” and it comes off as a sexual fantasy.

He also talks about how he met with BBC staff to promote better coverage of “trans” people. The BBC figure frequently in the promotion of trans ideology, with a complete disregard for the safeguarding implications, despite their own shameful history in allowing predators in their midst.

In common with lots of “trans” activists they make sure to get the police on their side.

Lots of his work also involves going into schools to educate (indoctrinate)children. This is one of the major failings of the Conservative Government who are allowing our children to be manipulated, funded by tax payers. He appears to do this across the U.K.

He also appears on this Pride Wales YouTube alongside a person who appears to be female, with a beard, claims not to be “trans” and has a gay husband with whom, I presume, she has had the children she refers to…#Confused. Below are some images from the trailer. Men dressed in fetish gear and a captured police force.

Rhonnda Pride

The host appears to introduce herself as Minus DaCock with Tammy Paxton. Here they are:

In this video we learn that Hutchinson is, surprise, surprise, a gamer in a relationship with a woman. He spouts a lot of, scientifically illiterate guff about the reversibility of puberty blockers and claims his rights are under attack by the Conservative government. The “rights” in question turn out to mean he might lose access to the female toilets. That would be cruel wouldn’t ? To force a woman to share toilets with men?

Hutchinson’s twitter timeline is full of opposition to “terfs”. He has particular beef with Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel. He also doesn’t like the idea of an exclusively gay rights focused charity; so retweets attacks on LGB Alliance.

This is from a piece he wrote for Diversity Role Models listing all the things he feels are under threat from these terf /bigots. The arrogant incursion into single sex spaces by cross-dressing males is the new colonialism. Here he is openly opposing EXISTING LAW to protect women and girls from sexual predators/men with fetishes.

You can also find him crowing about Lesbians being ejected from Pride Cymru. Yet he appears to be a heterosexual man!

Next up is a transgender Vicar. Working within a religious setting to advance “trans” rights.

You can support my work here. I appreciate every penny! Or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

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


C.Burns: Introduction: Trans Britain (Part 1)

Now seems as good a time as ever to cover more of Burn’s work, especially because this book is dedicated to Mermaids.


Here is the dedication to Mermaids 👇. controversial

Mermaids is a charity which promotes the idea children can be born in the wrong body and need to be prevented from going through a natural puberty / prepared for a life of surgeries. Older (trans-identified) men are especially keen to promote “transgender” children because it desexualises the motives that direct many older male “transsexuals” It is also feeds a fantasy of “passing” better as the sex they wish they were; a kind of retrospective wish fulfilment.

The foreword is written by Dr Aaron Devor who is a Canadian “trans” activist who occupies the worlds first Chair of Transgender Studies at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. The post was funded by a donation of $1 million from the Tawani Foundation run by a trans-identified male called “Jennifer” Pritzker. You can read more about Pritzker here:

Who is bankrolling “Transgender” Ideology

The book opens with a glossary to educate the readers in the “new speak” of “transgender” ideology, and makes it clear the definition of “trans” includes cross-dressers. Burns explains cross-dressers in this clip 👇 but omits the way the man obtains his “relaxation” and “pleasure”; which is by masturbating while wearing clothing associated with the female sex. The goal is to distance themselves from any link to transvestic fetishism. Women can’t be allowed to know that some of the men, now claiming access to spaces, formerly reserved for women and girls, do so because they are sexually motivated.

Burns opens the book by celebrating the way in which this rampant mysogyny has taken hold, in the preceding decades. One notable example is the celebration of Caitlin (Bruce) Jenner as woman of the year. Burns can’t quite repress his 1950’s version of sexism here and describes Caitlin as “head of the Kardashian family”.

At the other end of the age range Burns includes Jazz Jennings. Jenning was first sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and progressed to a TV series documenting his life from puberty blockers, followed by cross sex hormones, castration and ,finally, penis inversion. Jennings, sadly, appears to have lost any ability to achieve orgasm, infamously asking if an orgasm was “like a sneeze”? The penis growth was so stunted, by the pubertal suppression, he needed multiple surgeries to create a faux vagina using experimental techniques. Jazz is one of the victims of this ideology but, to Burns, he is to be paraded as a celebrity. Burns nails it with the acknowledgment of the role of “corporates” in peddling this ideology to minors. Jazz is a brand ambassador but he will soon be cast aside because his sexual dysfunction and massive weight gain are not quite the image the Gender Industrial Complex had in mind.

Burns takes us on a whistle stop tour of “trans” celebrities, almost all of them male, before moving onto “transgender” people in politics (again most of them male). First we learn about Georgina Beyer who became an MP In New Zealand having first been a prostituted male and drag queen. You can watch an interview with Beyer here at the Cambridge Union. Beyer talks of his role in passing legislation to decriminalise male sex buyers and mentions, in passing, his invitation to the U.K. House of Lords by Michael Cashman. He also references the opposition to the Gender Recognition Act reforms by British radical feminists. Beyer finishes by boasting about being included in the celebrations for the anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. He is delighted he has been accepted “as a woman” but, bizarrely, adds that we should be grateful for the men that voted for female suffrage.

Georgina Beyer


All this visibility, Burns argues, led to an inevitable backlash. Burns attributes this to the right wing and fundamental Christians. It remains to be seen whether Burns acknowledges the opposition from left wing feminists and the homosexual community.

Without a trace of irony he argues that the focus on “bathroom” bills is designed to bar “trans” people from public life, nicely ignoring the urinary leash women operated under prior to the provision of female only facilities.

In fact we know that making female facilities mixed sex increases the risk of sexual assault but Chris doesn’t care about anything else but his own validation as something he is not.

In the next section Burns details the increased visibility of “trans” people in the U.K. He begins with reference to a 2010 serialisation of a “transition” journey by Juliet Jacques.

Jacques publicly admits that his cross dressing started at 10 and had a sexual element to it in this talk.

Juliet Jacques

Trans media watch: Jane Fae

Burns then covers the organisation Trans Media Watch which worked hard to increase transgender visibility a kid of product placement, if you will.

Here is the press release put out by Channel 4 at the time.

Channel 4. Trans Media Watch

One of the trustees for Trans Media Watch is a man called Jane Fae. A late transitioning male who is a defender of extreme porn.

Jane Fae on laws about porn

Fae also defends BDSM and “consensual slavery” . This is from an article he wrote for the Guardian in 2011.

He also began as a cross-dresser:

I see this Trans Media Watch as a men’s sexual rights organisation intended to carefully curate their image, in effect to sanitise their “gender identity” to make it more palatable to the general public. This allows the public parading of a fetish and simultaneously forcing women to participate; which gives an added frisson to the undercover brothers.

Fox Fisher

Next up Burns references another trans activist: Fox Fisher.

Fox Fisher is a trans-identified female who first came to prominence in the above documentary and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a trans-identified male. The male in question is Ugly Stefania who you may be familiar with. Ugly is a trans-activist who wrote the foreward to the infamous Denton’s document. The Denton’s document is a must read if you want to see how trans-activism strategised how to socially engineer society to bow to their demands. I cover it here : 👇

That Denton’s Document

Ten years on from that documentary Fox has the tell tale voice of a woman on testosterone is post double mastectomy and is, as I write, recovering from Metoidioplasty: a surgery to create the approximation of a penis. Even before Fox went under the knife he didn’t rule out a future phallioplasty if the operation didn’t bring enough “euphoria” down below.

Fox is charge of Brighton Pride despite being in a heterosexual relationship and despite this comment made at a Mermaids summer camp.

Fox Fisher has frequently been platformed by Childline which is run by the N.S.P.C.C (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). The N.S.P.C.C is the only charity which has statutory powers to remove children from their parents. Childline relentlessly push transgender content at your kids. I covered this here:

Queering the NSPCC? FINAL

Paris Lees

Next up is Paris Lees. Another trans-identified male given prominence over the last decade. Lees was formerly incarcerated for a robbery that, eventually, resulted in a man’s death. He also has a background as a prostituted male.

Here is Paris talking about his background as a male prostitute and robbing a client.

Here are a few more contributions from Paris Lees.

Here is Paris defending the charity Mermaids which I include because the Charity Commission are about to investigate the Charity.

Frank /Kellie Maloney

Next up we celebrate the boxing promoter who came out as “Kellie”.

Here’s “Kellie” talking about the time he tried to strangle his wife.

Here Tracy talks about their marriage. Frank had been keeping a secret flat and he only revealed his secret life, as a cross-dresser when the press threatened to expose him.

He tried to blame his wife for the many rows.

When he initiated divorce proceedings he allowed people to think it was his wife who had abandoned him.

These are the brand ambassadors selected by Burns. In the next I will have a look at the Soap stars used to promote gender identity ideology and “trans” identified people who have attempted to gain political office in the U.K.

If you appreciate my work you can support me here or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All donations gratefully received.

My substack

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


WPATH on Children

World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Version 8 of the WPATH guidelines (2022). Let’s have a gander at what it says about treating children who we have decided are born in the wrong body. Before we get into the detail meet Amy Tishelman. She authored this chapter and explicitly said it was written in such a way to minimise legal consequences for practitioners. 👇

You can watch this here:

Amy Tishelman

It is also important to listen to Marci Bowers; trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs “gender affirming” operations. Bowers is also the President elect of WPATH. Link below 👇 . Children (males) who have their puberty blocked will have a micro penis and will be unlikely to ever have an orgasm, when they are adults. Bearing in mind puberty can start from age 9, we are expecting these kids to know what they are giving up. Marci still signed off these guidelines.

Marci Bowers

These two contributions set the scene for the guidance on treating children who have been “diagnosed” as “transgender”. WPATH have to make sure that health insurance covers the procedures for which they advocate. At the same time they are keen not to expose practitioners, working in this field, to any legal consequences; particularly in the light of rising rates of detransitioners and the beginning of the first law suits.

This chapter outlines “guidance” for the treatment of pre-pubertal children. In order to legitimise this practice society needs to believe that childhood “gender diversity” has always been a feature of human development. They also need to facilitate access to medical intervention whilst simultaneously de-pathologising it and denying it is a mental illness. Claiming this is a “natural” variation in humans which, only sometimes, requires access to synthetic hormones and surgeries, takes some mental gymnastics. As we will see the author’s of the WPATH guidelines are up to the task.

At the same time WPATH also argue that “diverse gender expression” need not be a sign that someone is “transgender” or even that they are “gender incongruent”.

Any attempt to explore whether “diverse gender expression” is indicative of a “transgender” identity is labelled conversion therapy. It is perfectly clear that the best resolution for any child would be to reconcile to their biological sex/homosexuality and thus avoid a lifetimes dependence on hormones /surgeries. For this “condition” ,and only this condition, the medical profession is exhorted not to attempt curative treatments which, by the way, cuts off a profitable income stream for the pharmaceutical industry. They also assume that any attempts to reconcile a child with their natal sex would comprise “forcing” the child to behave in line with socially mandated expectations for their sex. In fact any decent therapist would explain that it is perfectly possible to be a girl who likes football or a boy who loves The Little Mermaid and would know there is a high chance that, if left alone, a significant proportion would grow up to be healthy gay adults.

This chapter also recognises the high rates of autism in kids who present with “gender dysphoria”. Given the difficulty autistic kids have in picking up social cues and fitting in with social norms, isn’t it more likely that they struggle to fit in with the expectations for their sex because “gendered” behaviour is, to a large degree learned?

The guidelines repeatedly assure parents that the children who thrive are the ones allowed to express their “identity” and that this may mean a social / medical approach. A social “transition” would allow the child to masquerade as the opposite sex amongst their peers, with or without their knowledge. The authors believe that a “gender” identity can emerge even in pre-school children; an assumption which seems to be made on the basis that two/three year olds learn the difference between men and women as well as the socially encouraged /proscribed behaviours for boys/girls.

Social Transition.

The consequences of social transition are dealt with in this article 👇

A childhood cannot be reversed

This seems a workable solution when a child is very young but when puberty arrives the fact that they are not like the other boys/girls becomes distressingly apparent. Making the path to puberty blockers more likely. Joseph/Joanna has not spent these years learning there is no right or wrong way to be a girl/boy but, instead, has spent them denying biological reality.

Practitioners working in this field are encouraged to discuss the advantages, and disadvantages, of a social “transition” but there is no discussion of the issues raised in the above article. In general it is promoted as having a positive impact on mental health. It has also expanded to cover “non-binary” whatever that means.

In this section they do acknowledge the potential impact on sexual function, though it merits much more detail than provided. Practitioners are advised to cover all these issues 👇

Gender Identity Ideologues are keen to warn against using the idea of “gender fluidity” to demure from socially “transitioning” your child.

Pharma funded, Jack Turban, also warns of the harms that may accrue to a child who does not “socially transition”. The non-conforming child may be ostracised or bullied ….so let’s sterilise them! This is so, so, regressive.

Social transition can, they advise, include any of the below actions. Whether or not this is revealed to other pupils/parents is depicted as a matter of choice for the “trans” child which means other children are having their consent, to share mixed sex facilities, overridden. The implications for females are also disregarded; in terms of participation in sport against biological males.


As with the adolescent section WPATH can no longer deny cases of regret and detransition. The reddit detransition page is no approaching 40,000 and when I first starting looking at it there were less than 10,000. Commentators on that forum are openly skeptical about the repeated statistic of a 1% rate of detransition; which WPATH repeat in this section. The points they raise are the unwillingness to notify the clinic who harmed you and also the changing nature of the demographic due to lower/removal of gate keeping.

The figure of 8% is what one study, in the U.K. found even though the way they measured it seemed also destined to underestimate the numbers. I covered that study here.

Detransition: Cambridge Study (2)

Here is a clip from my piece on that study; which raises some of the difficulties with studies in this area. The definition of a “detransitioner” can be narrowed to exclude someone who may have ceased medical intervention but remains in “social role”. This maybe to remain in their “community”, it maybe that a man who is post-operative declines to reintroduce testosterone into his body and therefore remains, technically, a medical “transitioner”. ( I know of one man in this position).

Human Rights /Activism.

The Gender Industrial complex has been very successful at persuading erstwhile Human Rights Organisation to embrace “Transgender Ideology” as if it were a Civil Rights issue. Amnesty International has shown itself willing to be co-opted, as has the ACLU, Liberty and GLAAD and, of course Stonewall. Some adopt a name which suggests they are campaigners for Human Rights when they are anything but 👇. The HRC is the largest LGBTQ+ lobby group.

As this document makes clear Health Care Practitioners are also expected to be (trans) advocates with parents, schools, and the larger community.

Furthermore they are encouraged to get involved politics, education and legally and in the media. Challenging laws and social norms. This is an activists charter and sadly many of our health care “professionals” have responded to this rallying call.

In conclusion WPATH are going full steam ahead irrespective of the increasing research about the harms they are inflicting on our kids. This is a dark time for Gay Rights, Women’s Rights and will be a dark stain on the medical profession.

You can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received. Or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

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


WPATH: Guidelines V 8 {1}

World Professional Ass. for Transgender Health.

WPATH set the treatment protocols for “Transgender” health that guide organisations the world over. You can download the full guidance here: 👇

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People Version 8

The new guidance, published in 2022, adds a section for Eunuchs who are now to be included under the, ever expanding, transgender umbrella.

This organisation is listened to by the U.K. NHS. Those endorsing this guidance include Marci Bowers, President Elect of WPATH, who I wrote about here:

Marci Bowers

This is a reminder of a public statement made by Bowers about the impact of puberty blockers on sexual pleasure. Bowers still signed off this document.

Also signing this off was Diane Ehrensaft. She is infamous for telling parents how pre-verbal babies can signal their “gender”. It might be a girl who tears barrettes out of her hair to tell you she is a boy. Or this example 👇 of a boy who signalled his discomfort with his sex, she claims, by unsnapping his onesie.

Diane Ehrensaft was also associated with the discredited accusations of ritual, satanic abuse back in the 1980’s/1990’s. You can find a lot of her presentations on YouTube. This is another example of her magical thinking. This woman is taken seriously. 😳.

In the U.K the guidance is endorsed by the Nottingham “Transgender” clinic and the local University, Medical school.

Chapter 1 covers terminology and settles on “Transgender” and “Gender Diverse” but makes it clear these were not uncontroversial choices and notes that other cultures may use different terms; a theme expanded on in Chapter 2. Estimates of the “transgender” population are covered in the third Chapter recognising there are higher numbers selecting a “gender diverse” identity in the younger population; hardly a surprise since they have had gender identity ideology rammed down their throats for up to a decade. Chapter 4 is a long winded reminder to #EducateYourself in which they exhort govt. bodies, healthcare providers etc to learn about the “transgender population”.


I am going to skip over what they have to say about assessing adults and go straight to Chapter 6 and assessment of adolescents. They note the spike in teenage referrals and the over-representation of females and they are still describing puberty blockers as “fully reversible

At the same time they are keen to point out that a natural puberty is “irreversible” leaving lasting changes to the body. One of those changes, for male children, is penile growth, those who have puberty blocked will have stunted genitalia and, as a result, operations to mimic female genitalia will be much more problematic.

WPATH contradict themselves numerous times in this chapter. Here 👇 they talk of the dangers of “extended” pubertal suppression and potential impact on neurodevelopment. This calls into question WPATH’s own claim that they are “fully reversible”. They recommend against prolonged useage. Predictably, they use this “danger” to argue for the earlier introduction of cross sex hormones.

They also recognise that brain maturation continues into the mid 20’s ; which concerns those of us who have children who embarked on these drugs in their late teens.

It is worth quoting the factors, listed below, in teenagers who embark on irreversible changes to their bodies. Increased risk taking, a sense of urgency, peer pressure all raised as potential influences with adolescents embarking on “gender affirming” treatments.

The authors do at least reference Lisa Littman’s research on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria but cast doubt on its validity for these reasons: 👇. A biased sample drawn from parents skeptical about “affirmation” as a protocol.


Littman also undertook some work on detransition which I cover below: 👇

Littman and Detransition

WPATH admit there is a dearth of follow up studies on youth transitioners especially any that track them up until adulthood. 👇 A systematic review is therefore not possible. Remember we have been doing this for 25 years!

They then quote the “only” study to follow into children into adulthood but note this is only from 13 to 20 years old, right before brain maturation, which is expected to continue to around age 25. This is a study 👇 is from 2014. We are now in 2022!

They also cover another study and the author has accused them, publicly, of misrepresented their work. He believes that detransition is underestimated, contrary to the claims made by WPATH.

Because the phenomenon is now undeniable they do cover detransition. In this survey 25% had detransitioned before age 25.

You can read my series on detransition here 👇


Despite concern that there is a social contagion element to kids identifying as “gender diverse” the authors continue to push for promotion of “transgender” identities as a simple variation in nature that has existed since the beginning of civilisation. Certainly there have always been people who struggled to live within, rigidly enforced, sex stereotypes, many of whom were simply gay/lesbian. Claiming there have always been “trans” people on the back of gender non-conforming homosexuals is blatant propaganda. The existence of synthetic sex identities emerged only in the last century.

Plus ca Change.

This is the long list of demands WPATH issue which are all likely to continue the “social contagion” by promoting the idea that “gender identity” is real and a more meaningful category than biological sex. All this will do is continue to encourage excessive rumination and a search for meaning under the ever expanding list of “gender identities”.

Number 11 is an instruction to make toilets mixed sex, once again disregarding the need, especially for females, for sex separated facilities. A major impediment to the spread of this ideology would be the removal of any such incentives. It cannot be good for your mental health to hand your sense of self over to other people’s presumed perception of you as male or female. This need for validation of your identity drives ever more authoritarian moves to force society to collude with this most basic of untruths. This creates a false of reality and a danger of it all crashing down when the compulsion to believe your “gender identity” is non-existent.

Emotional Blackmail of parents.

They continue with a long list of adverse consequences, including suicide, for parents who don’t express 100% support for the synthetic sex identity. Parents are to be force-teamed into agreeing with the medicalisation of their children and even used to justify earlier surgeries on the grounds they can help with “post-operative” care. This is also used to justify earlier surgeries.

And heaven forfend you suggest that reconciling to your biological sex /sexuality is the healthier outcome. That would be “Conversion Therapy”. 👇 I cannot think of any other “condition” where doctors are actively discouraged from trying to avoid a life times dependence on drugs.

Breast binding and Tucking.

Instead WPATH recommend the promotion of breast binding and tucking male genitalia, despite the health risks.

Here is a list of side effects from using breast binders:

For tucking a significant risk is testicular torsion. 👇 Sounds a bit grim.


There is clearly no appetite for addressing the concerns raised by rising rates of detransitioners and WPATH have opted to include these surgeries for under 18’s. Here are their recommendations. They list includes orchiectomy, vaginaplasty, hysterectomy, facial feminisation surgery and phalloplasty.

Phalloplasty is included even though, elsewhere, they recommend against it, for under 18’s because of the high rate of complications.

There is some quoted research on orgasmic potential for those undertaking a “vaginaplasty” which claims 84% will be able to achieve orgasm. Which means 16% will not and, crucially, they do not include figures on what point the males had their puberty suppressed. This means they are not presenting any data allowing us to extrapolate orgasmic potential for those who have had puberty suppressed from a young age.

Despite this the document pushes for earlier “Gender Affirming Health Care” (GAHT) for under 16’s including double mastectomies for minors.

Human Rights Groups

We must never forget that all of this is advocated by, formerly respected, human rights organisations. Amnesty International is one such and they are also quoted in this document. This Mengele medicine would never have reached this stage without putative claims this is a new Civil Rights cause.

I will do a series and cover the other chapters. Next up the section on children.

You can support my work here if you want to tip the balance away from the billionaires driving “transgenderism”.

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhumanism. Chapter 7

We are on the home stretch. This is the penultimate chapter.

This is the new edition of a book originally entitled the Apartheid of Sex. The author is a “trans-identified”, heterosexual male. He is married and fathered three children. He is also a transhumanist who believes we can live on as “cyber-conscious” beings after our flesh suits have degraded. You might think this would render him an outcast but, in fact, he is currently a trustee sitting of Mayo Clinic, who are a large hospital charity; sometimes described as foremost in the world.

You can catch up with the series here:


Beyond gay or straight.

If chapter 6 has not convinced you that Gender Identity Ideology is an existential threat to gay rights this ought to do it. Rothblatt wants any acknowledgment that sex is real, and that we are a sexually dimorphic species, eradicated. He wants to purge references to male and female from language or repurpose them to mean your subjective sense of self. This is all to validate the author who believes himself to have a female soul. Lest it is not immediately apparent what the consequences are for the L, G and B here are his thoughts.

Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual lose all meaning in a world where sex isn’t real and enough people have been sold a “synthetic sexual identity”. Note that Rothblatt does not insist on any hormonal/surgical treatment to justify claiming to be the opposite sex.

He is insistent, consistent and persistent with this messaging. He really wants it to sink in.

This is where the conflation with racism seeps in. He returns to this theme repeatedly to generate feelings of shame.

You would think bisexuals would get a free pass but, no, they fall foul of the “bi” which acknowledges two sexes. They have to be redefined as “multi sexual” so they don’t leave out anyone who doesn’t identify with the binary. Now he performs faux perplexity about the dating choices of Butch lesbians. The short answer is that same sex relationships do depend on sex organs. A Butch Lesbian who dates a “femme” lesbian would not be similarly attracted to a “femme” gay male because of his sex!


After sex has been abolished and we have all been recategorised according to colours (really! see chapter 6) this is how Rothblatt imagines the future. Notice how he cannot imagine a partnership that does not depend on “mount or be mounted”! Does he seriously think people don’t exchange roles in sex already? All he seems to imagine is a binary of passive v dominant which is the same old binary thinking.

Of course Rothblatt believes your identity is valid no matter your hormone/surgical status but he also normalises irreversible body modifications. 👇 Note the casual reference to “hysterectomy” to eliminate “her” period”. This is a serious surgery that will trigger early menopause and heighten the risk for early onset dementia. Also he is pretending to assume the use of a dildo changes someone sex. There is no point at which two females, who are in a sexual relationship, become a heterosexual couple even if one of them takes synthetic sex hormones has surgeries or uses a dildo.

He begins this paragraph saying there are no valid answers but proceeds to argue that it is valid that one “feels” male more than if they have surgeries. 👇

Notice he first says there is no valid answers, then gives this “valid” answer then undercuts himself again.

He digresses at this point to talk about laws against sodomy and gay marriage. Interestingly he claims that marriage was performed between two people based on their appearance. I suspect this may not be wholly accurate. The problem, he argues, only arises if they separate and one of them wishes to annul the marriage, perhaps to avoid spousal support.

Same sex marriage now exists, in U.K law and, in fact, most of the opposition to the Gender Recognition Act came because the opposition were largely opposed to same sex marriage. The bizarre consequence of the GRA (in the U.K) was that, initially, for people who obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) who were in a heterosexual marriage had to end; this affected women, predominantly because most GRC applications were from men. However, two people of the same sex could marry if one of them had a different legal sex. In effect parliament legalised same sex marriage for this special category of men and made it illegal for some women to remain in their marriage.

He then spends some time talking about the multiple ways in which children could be produced in these relationships. Get your head around this? 👇 “If one of the women was a sterile man” . He is going for the terms “mother” and “father”.

This is also quite revealing. My other half is more nurturing than I. I still carried and gave birth to my two sons and I will always be their mum, just as their dad is their dad and nothing about being male should preclude him from being the primary carer, which he was. This 👇 is like something out of the 1950’s.


We have not, as a society, fully appreciated what happens to the human mind when they can cos play in cyber space. I remember being nonplussed by my son playing animal crossing. It was all perfectly innocent stuff but I wonder now how much living a “virtual life” impacts on the brain. Rothblatt is, naturally, celebratory about the experience of living a different identity on line. Are we fostering this disassociative state on line?

Are our kids performing their “gender” on line, receiving “affirmation” and never engaging with the reality of how they are perceived outside their bubble? Rothblatt seems to have a negative view of real life interactions because they reinforce sexist stereotypes. 😳 I am no fan of the “real life” tests as a gatekeeping tool of sex conformity clinics but now our kids are “affirmed” with only on-line reactions to judge acceptance rates, by we are setting them up for rejection. Are male “lesbians” getting “affirmed” on line and believing the propaganda? Dr Az Hakeem said his most “contented” patients were those with autism because take it all on face value; they took polite pronoun use as evidence they “passed” and were therefore accepted in female spaces.

Rothblatt laments the lack of sensation available in cyber spaces but hails the new technological developments which will allow cyber suits where the subject will be able to feel touch in the virtual sphere.

Doing this in the virtual sphere has no lasting harm written on your body, at least. The effect on the brain, given neuro-plasticity is probably under-researched though I did find one paper.

Disorders from problematic game use

Rothblatt mentions none of this. 👇.

Trouble is when you have taken synthetic hormones, removed your breasts had a hysterectomy or been castrated /had your penis inverted logging off is no longer an option.

Transhuman joy without orgasm.

There follows a section about living a post flesh existence with no ability to erotic function. He believes there will be “killer orgasms” in a future decades away. In my darker moments I wonder if he is watching the deliberate creation of a new inorgasmic breed of males and seeing how it plays out. Nothing suprised me anymore.

He concludes by singing the praises of all the joys of life that are to be had outside of sexual pleasure. Reading, conversation and witnessing the diversity of life with friends and family. If this doesn’t convince you he speculates on the future ability to grow humans, to adult size, in a man-made faux womb. He thinks market forces will make it happen.

If you want to tip the balance against these crazy billionaires you can support me here:

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman. Chapter 6.

Reading this book I have been by turns bemused and astonished at his belief system and effrontery. This chapter made me angry. Many /Most of you will have heard the acronym deployed D.A.R.V.O. in this “debate”. It stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse,Victim and Offender and it was coined by J Freyd. You can read it here:


This except gives a flavour and it should be a recognisable pattern, by now.

This whole book is an extended piece of D.A.R.V.O. This chapter exemplifies his technique. He misuses feminist arguments, feigns to care about women and oppose sexism while campaigning against them, similarly with gay rights. If you read one chapter this is the one!

He opens this chapter with this quote from Kurt Vonnegut. This from a man whose pretence is that he is really a woman. He is toying with us.

He begins by complaining that the language of “sexual apartheid”, that is using male /female “infects” our vocabulary. His choice of language implies our lexicon is disease riven and of course, in that case, it must be “cleansed”. This is the language of “cultural genocide” as pointed out by Dr Julia Long; specifically in relation to Lesbian culture. At the time Long wondered if she was being hyperbolic but on examination of the phenomena she concluded she was not. I am strongly inclined to agree with her now we have seen the widespread erasure of words to describe women and women’s experience. Think “Trans Women are Women” versus Women are “Cis-Women”. It is now verboten to use Transwomen because males must not have any suggestion their inclusion is subject to qualification or uterus-haver, gestator or pregnant person.

Rothblatt makes it clear that he believes language is critical in achieving his project and questions whether the existing language may have been forced on an unwilling populace, rather than emerged as a simple response to the fact we are a sexually dimorphic species. This language, as he makes clear, has to change to make way for a “continuum of sexual identities”. This is where the project pronoun comes into play.

Rothblatt makes an appeal to authority by referencing Chomsky’s theory about the innateness of the human instinct to develop language. However he claims, because the words used to describe “gender” vary across time and cultures this is not innate. He also the way we describe “gender” may have emerged to enforce class divisions. I have no idea how he makes that leap and he doesn’t show his workings out.

Newspeak: Project Pronoun

There follows a section where Rothblatt plays around with the best way to de-sex language. He identifies for potential routes. One of them is to ask the recipient of your interaction what is their preferred mode of address. Rothblatt, correctly, identifies the difficulties with this. People may forget and inadvertently cause offence. Another alternative is to avoid any reference to language rooted in the reality of biological sex. We could invent a new lexicon. Rothblatt gives some examples of the newspeak.

The other option is to use existing words but change the way they are used.

Nobody can be unaware of the spread of pronoun propaganda. So many intelligent, otherwise thoughtful people are proclaiming their pronouns. This is not a neutral act. It signals agreement with an ideology that has now seen national media print statements like this:

This is not an isolated case. It is in fact because of IPSO the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Media reporting is only one issue. There is now an issue with male crimes, even rapes, being actually recorded by the criminal justice system as if they were perpetrated by females. What follows from this is the housing of male sex offenders in the female estate. This is where your virtue-signalling, pronouns in bio, leads.

Also no way am I calling my other half after a drug wreaking havoc in the prison system. In fact many women and men use “partner” anyway and lots of this changed language already evolved following feminist campaigning.

Rothblatt instructs his readers to call their vagina-having relatives by their preferred terms even if this is old-fashioned, sex revealing, language like “Aunt” or “Mom”. Superficially this sounds eminently reasonable but he can’t resist comparing those clinging to this language with the architects of apartheid; referencing Nelson Mandela. So you can call her “Auntie” but she is akin to a racist.

In New York you can be fined $275,000 for misgendering, in Ireland a man is in prison for breaching a court order which directed him not to return to the school where he worked; he is currently suspended, pending a disciplinary hearing, for refusing to use opposite sex pronouns for a boy. Whether you wanting it, or not, Martine, this is the world your authoritarian ideology has created. This is a classic reversal of victim and offender.

Deborah Tannen.

Rothblatt takes issue with a statement from Tannen by, in my view, wilfully misunderstanding the point she is making. Stating that women experience a male dominated society differently to men should be uncontentious. This does not mean we accept sex stereotypes as an accurate depiction of what it means to be a woman. Men do need to speak to women in a way that shows some appreciation of how we are obliged to navigate the world.

Martine, instead, makes the patronising assumption that anyone who opposes his gender identity propaganda just doesn’t understand. Tannen is not claiming Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus like a sexist man. She is simply saying we are not the same as men and the universal human is always a default male. A world built on the assumption we are the same is why office temperatures are always set a little bit lower than is needed for a female’s comfort or heart attack symptoms are overlooked. In this section we see some of Rothblatt’s motivation. Irritation that his need to perform woman face is rooted in a disorder. Why does he cling to the word “woman” and claim he wants to eradicate sex based language?

Women fighting for sex based rights = Racism

The theme that women defending the words to describe our lives and experiences is akin to racism is repeated Ad nauseum throughout this book. The repetition is designed to embed this thought process and trigger it whenever women defend their rights.


D.A.R.V.O on Steroids.

This has to be the most egregious lie at the heart of this book. Rothblatt is arguing that women asking for sex based language are causing females to identify out of their sex. Only a sick mind could blame feminism for the rise of girls identifying out of their sex and not Gender Identity Ideology but he really goes there. 👇

And this 👇

Not to forget our boys here a boy wanting to be a “mummy” is presented as a boon for children needing adoption. Rothblatt’s womb envy is off the scale. It is the utmost cruelty to pretend a boy can be a “mother”. We are not all earth mothers but we are the sex that carries babies and gives birth. Calling us “gestators” or “uterus-havers” or talking about “pregnant people” is seizing the forces of reproduction and erasing women’s labour, literally. I will forever despise men on the left for going along with this.

We used to know how to satirise this nonsense.

Stan wants a baby

Sexual Orientation

In case you have not woken up to the aim to eradicate sexual orientation, Rothblatt makes it abundantly clear in his writing. Here he returns to Chomsky and theories of in an innate language instinct. He has already argued that “gender” cannot be innate because we have no consistency of language to talk about sex/gender. Now he turns to sexual orientation. Is it innate?

He argues against it being innate, as some homosexuals do. There is a split on the issue. Early campaigners judged that arguing for it being innate would lend impetus for the campaign for equal rights. Some expressed concern that a “gay gene” would make natal gays vulnerable.

So, where does Rothblatt go with this argument? That’s right if you are motivated you can overcome your same sex orientation even if genetically predisposed.

Census Data & Femicide

Not for the first time Rothblatt uses extensive census data to document the phenomenon of aborting female foetuses/female infanticide. Remember Rothblatt’s wants to eradicate all sex based data including the census. If he gets his way we would t know the extent of this practice.

He then proceeds to express his horror that any biotechnology can be in the hands of sexists. Sexist man says what! (Only dogs can hear me now).

He does his usual trick here of switching from sex to gender. He is using the disappearance of the female sex to advance his own argument which is really about “gender identities”. He thinks if we stopped talking in terms of “sex” tweet will solve aborted, female, foetuses/female infanticide.

It’s not a coherent argument but he will use anything to justify his own need to cos play as his opposite sex stereotype.


He then extends the discussion of bio-ethics to talk about engineering transhuman subjects. He argues that there is a race to engineer a sentient “robot” and in order to make them resemble humans their consciousness must be designed to have the full range of human emotions, including “angst and dread”. In this race, he argues, mistakes must be made and we have to developing a new ethics to decide how we confer rights in those new “cyber-conscious” beings.

He then draws comparison with the abortion of a “horribly retarded or autistic” foetus. (His words not mine).

Right Side of History?

He finishes with a recommendation for an ethical panel to review decisions about terminating the “life” of these new beings.

I will return with Chapter 7. The final chapter. If you are not convinced this is a a dangerous man, by now, I don’t know what will persuade you.

If you want to tip the balance in favour of women and against these crazy billionaires you can donate here:

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman: Chapter 5

This chapter is called Science and Sex. The “science” as you will see is, to put it mildly, contested.

Rothblatt begins with this quote which is interesting because this entire book is built on belief not empiricism.

He opens with a discussion of Thomas Kuhn who talked about how new knowledge is created by a fracturing of belief in existing knowledge; resulting in a paradigm shift. What Rothblatt is pushing is an end to the “belief” in sexual dimorphism and establishing the primacy of “gender identity”. Notice this common rhetorical trick from Rothblatt, 👇the conflation of two different issues, belief in the fact of sexual dimorphism; does NOT mean a belief in two “mental natures”. These are separate topics.

Kuhn did correctly identify a flaw in academia, where young researchers are reluctant to engage in work that criticises their seniors and older academics resist a new paradigm; which could undermine their own body of work. Rothblatt knows what he is doing because he promotes the idea that this area of research offers “interesting” opportunities for young researchers to create “new knowledge”. He also uses “revolutionary” which is an attractive buzzword to the young.

This is the new paradigm that Rothblatt seeks to embed. Notice that he wishes to disassociate reproduction from the female sex class and promote a new model of “sociotechnical” means. He is, of course, a supporter of surrogacy and developments experimenting to manipulate science to enable the possibility to outsource motherhood and even to allow males to gestate a child.

Another trick he uses, somewhat repetitively, is to equate sex separated spaces with segregation of the races. This is a common tactic used by Nancy Kelley who called Lesbians, unwilling to date penis-havers, “sexual racists”. It was also used by David Lammy during the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, in the U.K.

He also puts the cart before the horse; claiming separation of the sexes allows women to be treated as inferior. In reality, single sex spaces were hard won women’s rights activists to enable women to participate in public life and end the “urinary leash”.

Bearing in mind Rothblatt campaigns to end the collection of sex based data in the census he is not afraid to use census based data to advance his arguments. The wording here is odd, almost as if he is suggesting female infanticide is to save girls from the sad fate of being a woman. In reality females are aborted / murdered because males are prized over females.

In common with a lot of people, who’s critical thinking has been corrupted by queer theory and post modernist ideas that, crudely, “language shapes reality”. He genuinely believes that if we do away the labels male and female then sexism will cease to exist. At the same time we will be unable to track this because data will cease to be collected. This has already started to have consequences in, for example, crime statistics where male sex offenders are having their crimes recorded under the female category.

Rothblatt again draws parallels with sexist science claiming female brains were different and inferior. Once again there are feminist neuro-biologists who have attacked much of the purported “science” of lady brain. Personally I think it is unlikely that there are no differences but certainly much of the research is built on flimsy foundations. Cordelia Fine debunks a lot of this research as does Gina Rippon. It is also worth noting that many trans-activists claim that there is such a thing as a “female brain” and it can “accidentally” land in a male body.

As always Martin cherry picks the research to undermine the notion of two sexes. His argument is that because some women can do maths or read a map then biological sex doesn’t exist.

Having set up this straw man Rothblatt proceeds to argue sexual dimorphism cannot explain female mathematicians so we need a new paradigm based on the idea sex exists on a continuum.

The problem is that Rothblatt thinks if we stop calling men male this will eradicate male aggression. This is magical thinking. Until the sex offending class stop being responsible for 99% of sex offences this idea is madness. 👇

Chromatic Categorisation.

So what does Martine propose to replace sex categories with? Unbelievably it is this idea.

Here is a handy chart that he includes.

Seriously! Now might be a good idea to post another quote from Rothblatt from this chapter.

Good luck with this endless navel gazing claptrap.

The above table speaks volumes about Rothblatt’s internal psyche. He seems to have retained the same dualism aggressive versus nurturing of every sexist man ever. He is leaving the categories intact! (See Janice Raymond on this, in my series on Transsexual Empire).

Oh, honey it really isn’t realistic and “ungenitally infected” WTF! 😳.

Finally he links this all back to project transhumanism. He anticipates “some” people will be resistant to trans humans just as there will be *some* people resistant to the eradication of the sexes. Yep. There will be, resistance is building.

Just to contextualise this quote it comes from a man asked to define pornography and he said he couldn’t “but I know it when I see it.

If you want to tip the balance in favour of women and against these crazy billionaires you can donate here:

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