Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
David Lammy, as many of you will be aware, steered the Gender Recognition Act through Parliament, in 2004. Latterly he labelled women’s rights campaigners as dinosaurs, hoarding their rights. He also claimed that men can grow a cervix. If he ever goes on mastermind (again) I would suggest he does not make female anatomy his specialist subject.
David Lammy made some points which are now familiar arguments used by trans activists. He was very keen to point out the GRA would only affect an estimated 5000 people. He claimed this tiny minority were meek and timid and that his opponents in the debate needed to get a little perspective. His tone throughout was one of barely restrained exasperation in the face of objections. Sadly, few even mentioned the impact on women. Most of the tabled amendments focussed on the danger of allowing same sex marriage.
Lammy also compared the issue of sex segregated spaces to apartheid in South Africa. The clear implication is that women who don’t want to share spaces with biological males, aka men, are akin to racists.
For consistency with these series I also downloaded Lammy’s record of political donations. They are attached below:
There were two points of interest. One was a visit funded by Open SocietyFoundation. The Open Society has poured millions into the spread of Gender Identity Ideology.
The second was from Michael Hamlyn. Hamlyn was responsible for the film Priscilla , Queen of the Desert. He is also the son of Paul Hamlyn. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation shares a trustee with the Scott Trust, which oversees the Guardian. Michael Hamlyn sits on the board. The Paul Hamlyn Trust donated to Mermaids and other Trans Charities.
You can read more about the Paul Hamlyn Trust in this blog.
So, no real smoking gun re his donors. Can it be he really believes in this stuff 🤷♀️. The sad thing is he does make some great interventions in respect of women’s rights. He raises the rate of femicide in the UK, low sentences for rapists and women incarcerated at levels too high for the types of crimes (mainly non-violent and related to poverty). All of this good work is squandered when you argue for males to be in female spaces and, in particular, if you tacitly approve of those same rapists being housed in female prisons.
If you want to support my work you can do so here. As of this Friday I will actually have a small independent income so don’t donate if you are on benefits or a pension. No it’s not right wing money! 😂
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on Women’s sex based rights. Also researching the marketing of “Gender Dysphoria” to our most vulnerable kids.
This week the EHRC issued guidance which attempted to clarify, for service providers, that single sex services can be provided to women only. Tara Hewitt, an NHS employee, immediately took to twitter to denounce the guidance and urge senior NHS staff not to comply. Shockingly many senior people in the NHS Agreed.
EHRC Guidance.
The guidance itself is actually a restatement of the law. Even those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate, conferring a legal ”gender” status as a ”woman” ,can be legally excluded from female only spaces providing the exclusion is “legitimate and proportionate”. The problem we have had, for many years, is the widespread policy capture which has made service providers wary about using these exemptions, hence there is little case law to flesh out the circumstances in which women have the right to expect a single sex space actually excludes males. The Trans community is very litigious and between their legal challenges and the relentless ”trans” propaganda, NHS trusts have capitulated to the demands of the ”trans lobby”.
The end result has been this shocking case of a female patient, raped on a ward claiming it was female only. On reporting her rape she was told it had not happened because there was no man on the ward. The hospital itself lied to the victim.
For a hospital to collude with this is, of course, heinous but they are not helped by the privacy requirements built into the Gender Recognition Act. If the man in question had a Gender Recognition Certificate and this information is obtained because of your professional role, there are legal sanctions for revealing this information. At the present time the fine is set at Level 5 which is an unlimited financial penalty. This has created the bizarre situation where a member of staff is forced to tell you that an obvious man, is a woman.
What do we know about Tara?
This is Tara Hewitt. They are currently head of Diversity and Inclusion for the Northern Care Alliance (NHS).
Tara is also a trans-activist and co-founder of a Lobby group TELI.
Tara is employed by the NHS and once stood as a candidate for the Conservative Party. Because they have a public profile we know more about Hewitt than, perhaps, we would like. Tara is a Catholic who is opposed to women’s reproductive rights. In their spare time they also have a few interesting hobbies. {As covered in the Liverpool Echo, link below}.
Tara announces their job title as Diversity and Inclusion lead for UniversityHospitals Trust, South Manchester. Hewitt had been incited to give a talk to Macmillan by one of the people present who worked with them on the Manchester LGBT Cancer Support Alliance. Tara advises that they also work as a freelance diversity consultant and have worked with NHS Trusts across the U.K, they also lecture Health and Social Care students in different Universities. They have also advised prisons on inclusion. Tara was also part of an initiative called ”Trans Equality Legal Initiative” with these partners. 😳
Garden Court Chambers are currently being taken to an Employment Tribunal by Alison Bailey, one of the founders of LGB Alliance. You can read about her case here and also donate.
Action For Trans Health are one of the most extreme Trans Activist groups. Here are just a sample of the demands made, in a manifesto, which was public in 2018.
You may also remember the case of Jess Bradley, the first NUS Trans Officer who disappeared after posting pictures of himself indecently exposing himself at work. Here he is with Action For Trans Health.
As an aside, Tara is the worst presenter and totally unable to garner any engagement. I would love someone who had been there to tell me how it was received.
First there is some ramblings about intersectionality, with a trans spin. Then Tara tries to get participants to guess how many trans people will present with cancer. He claims this will be 300,000 out of a population he estimates at 600,000. He then proceeds to define trans people.
Transsexual in Tara’s world is someone who operates in a Gender Binary and has adopted the opposite Gender Role and this is irrespective of surgical status. According to Hewitt they dont need surgery to legitimate theor ”trans” status. Next he includes Drag Queens and Drag Kings. Next he moves on to cross-dressers and has this to say, in a room which appears to be predominantly, possibly all, female.
He doesn’t stop there:
It’s telling that this talk is met with stony silence. I would have reported this as sexual harassment. Tara then gives a mini lecture about why we should not judge so long as people are happy! (He can fuck off. I am judging, right now!). This is someone with no boundaries who we are allowing to influence policy and who also, by the way was appointed to Chair the Board of Governors at a boys school! (I checked he is no longer there).
He then lists a whole load of other ”identities” under the trans umbrella including transvestite which is when you want to parade your fetish in public. Some bether about non-binary and gender queer and them a tiresome lecture about pronouns….Sigh.
He also reminds the women to use the terminology that the trans person uses. One of them is that some transwomen prefer their penis a clitoris and it is polite to use the trans persons own terminology.
Tara then moves on to explain that a significant number of trans identified people are involved in ”sex work” and also many of them are sexually exploited. He does not link these two things and cautions his captive audience about not stigmatising those in the ”sex trade”. In order to reinforce the instructions to comply with the demands for preferred pronouns and not shaming men’s sexual proclivities, Tara throws in some made up statistics. The women are not even making eye contact.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s rights, gay rights and especially the medical scandal of what we are doing to children and youth at Gender Clinics.
I have had a look at Anthony Watson before because he donates to Dawn Butler M.P. I was moved to do some digging after she made this pronouncement on breakfast television; while she was standing for Deputy Leader! (It was not her only foray into LGBT politics, but it was her most high profile statement). She retracted it a few days later after much, deserved, public ridicule.
Who is Anthony Watson?
Watson is an extremely wealthy, gay, man. This is his wikipedia entry. He is described as “one of the most influential gay men in the world”. He was also elected to the Board of GLAAD, which stands for Gays and Lesbians against Defamation, in 2013. The irony of their name will become clear.
Anthony is quite a big donor to the Labour Party, in the U.K. You can search this data on the Electoral Commission website here: 👇
Here are the search results. As you can see he made 22 donations in all approaching £340,000. This will not sound much to readers in the United States but, in the U.K, donations are much more regulated. As an individual donor he would be regarded as a significant contributor. {As an aside the Trade Union movement dwarf the contributions, by individuals, hence why so much effort has been expended courting them. They deserve a stand alone piece focussing on how they betrayed their female members, especially the Unions whose membership is predominantly women. Trade Union leaders are more focussed on their male members, pun intended}.
Watson was clever in his donating strategy. He did donate directly to the Labour Party but the majority of his donations, 22 in all, were give directly to M.Ps. He directed his monies to those in the running for key leadership positions. Below is a PDF of all his donations ranked in descending order, based on the level of contribution.
Here is a screen shot showing the top beneficiaries. Angela Eagle and Owen Smith were both attractive targets for Watson, as they were in the Labour Leadership bid. Ditto Yvette Cooper. Dawn Butler was, at one point, in the running for the Deputy Leadership. Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle were also recipients, this is unsurprising as both are Gay Man and Kyle represents Hove, which is near Brighton, and arguably the U.K centre for Trans activism.
Both Dawn Butler and Wes Streeting continue to attract Watson’s £’s in 2022.
Wes Streeting
Streeting was formerly employed by, Lobby Group, Stonewall, as Head of Education. He was also accused of being a member of a sinister facebook designed to smoke out women who believe in women’s sex based rights. This involved the now disappeared ”Lily Madigan”, a man who took a women’s officer post, in the Labour Party and disappeared from public view after some rather sordid allegation. You can find a detailed account on Graham Linehan’s substack, here is a clip. 👇
According to screenshots, taken at the time, Wes Streeting was a member of that group. That the group existed is not in doubt; more than one women, of my acquaintance, was named as a ”transphobe” by the, rainbow draped,witch-finder generals.
If Wes Streeting was involved, it would seem he has gone on somewhat of a journey. No MP can keep on top of all aspects of modern day issues and many gay men seem to have assumed this is the new Gay Rights issue. Throw in his past association with Stonewall and he may have taken his opinion off the shelf. Whatever the truth of his position this is from an interview, in the Guardian, in January this year (2022).
I would still be wary of what compromises he thinks women should have to make but, if nothing else, it could suggest he has seen which way the wind is blowing. Either that or Labour MPs are wanting women’s votes in the bag before they betray us.
Proponents of this new manifestation of male imperialism; you have met your match on Terf Island.
Angela Eagle.
Eagle is more of a puzzle to me. She is a Lesbian and therefore, one would have assumed, she would understand that female homosexuals are attracted the same SEX. Perhaps Angela is unaware that dating apps, specifically for Lesbians, are banning women for making it clear they do not want to date males, however they identify. Is she aware of the ”Cotton Ceiling” which is transgender speak for the barrier Lesbian’s knickers present to “male lesbians”? Stonewall even employ a man who ran a “male only” (MAAB: Male Assigned at Birth) event on how to overcome the cotton ceiling.
In Tasmania a Lesbian only event, for females only, was declared in breach of Equality Legislation. You can read about this below.
A browse through Eagle’s Parliamentary record on Hansard shows her to be a consistent proponent of Gender Identity Ideology with no concern for women’s rights to single sex spaces, she argues for males to be allowed to self-id as women and blames anyone raising concerns as stoking a culture war” She also exhibits no concern for the medicalisation of gay youth, even though Lesbians are over-represented in detransitioners You can get a flavour of her purported views in this Hansard record of the debate on the GRA. 👇. Digested read is #BeKind with a sider order of outrage and references to Section 28. Not an inkling of awareness that sterilising gay youth is far, far, worse than Section 28.
Angela Eagle would appear to be joining a long list of Lesbians colluding with their erasure. The list includes Nancy Kelley and Ruth Hunt, current and former CEOs of Stonewall. Kelley and Hunt are in relationships with females and happy to deny young Lesbians the opportunities which were available to them. I call them Vichy Gays.
GLAAD: Gays & Lesbians against defamation.
Now to take a look at the organisation to which Anthony was appointed as a board member. This is yet another organisation who have been funded by Arcus Foundation. If you don’t know about Arcus I covered then below: Digested read. Arcus is a Foundation which bankrolls Gender Identity Ideology across the Globe. Set up by the heir to a billion dollar medical technology empire, so part of the Gender medico-Industrial complex.
GLAAD thank the Arcus Foundation for funding here:
They specifically funded this project. 👇 If you ever wonder why we are subjected to relentlessly trans propaganda look no further than a broken media. The business model is broken and big business stepped in to groom an entire industry.
{Arcus Foundation fund a lot of media outlets/training for people to push Transgender Propaganda}.
Against defamation?
Bearing in mind GLAAD claims to be against defamation, yet one of their projects defames anyone raising concerns about the trans agenda. This is a something called the Accountability Project which is deeply sinister and eerily reminiscent of the McArthy Witch-Hunts of 1950’s U.S.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a believer in biological sex”
You can access this project here. Profiles of those targeted is accessible via a drop down menu:
I was unfamiliar with many of the names but these are some who are singled out and whose ”crimes are listed. Germaine Greer,JK Rowling, Abigail Shrier, Debra Soh and U.K journalist Helen Lewis.
Debrah Soh and Abigail Shrier have both written about the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and the transitioning of vulnerable kids and teens.
Germaine Greer is singled out for recognising biological reality and Lewis for participating in a democratic consultation about allowing ”self-identity” to trump biological sex.
Of course they include JK Rowling. Her offence: Mainly, her entry is based on the association fallacy. They don’t bother to name Maya Forstater lost her job for gender critical beliefs. Maya recently won an appeal against a Judge 🤦 who labelled her views as “a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society”. This was found to be incorrect, in law. The outcome of her Employment Tribunal is pending.
I saw Goody Rowling talking to Goody Farrow.
I am indebted to Julian Vigo for the information about the accountability project. I cannot find this statement on GLAAD’s website but Vigo notes they originally planned to put it behind a paywall. 😳
Respect my sex or don’t get my X.
If you can afford to donate to support my work you can do so here. Contrary to rumour Grassroots women don’t have the backing of billionaires. We are not beneficiaries of the Foundations pushing Gender Identity Ideology and #BigMoney is backing #BigPharma.
This is a post based on a Radio 4 programme, from 2013. Whittle is just one of a number of people interviewed. This programme also alerted me to the role of Alex Carlile, ex of the Liberal Democrat’s, who has sat in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Most of the contributors are proponents of Gender Identity Ideology with the exception of JulieBindel.
I transcribed it because I find these sources are in danger of disappearing but you can still listen to it, as of March 2022, here 👇. {The featured image is the one used by the BBC by the way}
James Barrett is features, lead clinician for the UK national Gender clinic, as is Alex Carlile, ex Liberal Democrat who tabled a bill to allow ”trans identified” people to change their birth certificates, in 1996. Also interviewed are MelissaHines, who believes in self-defining your sex/gender and RichardO’Brien who believes he is 30% female and takes oestrogen, Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male, and Stephen Whittle, a trans-identified female. Julie Bindel is somewhat outnumbered. Here is the presenter, Jo Fidgen.
The format is not a round table discussion. The presenter asks some direct questions and interjects her own voice as narrator, whether the notes of incredulity are faux-naive I will leave you to judge, when she reaches her breathless, excited conclusions.
First up Whittle casts doubt on the rigour of hospital staff assessing sex at birth. I find the calibre of this argument ludicrous, to be frank.
The presenter raises a contemporary furore after the Observer published a provocative comment piece by JulieBurchill calling “male-to-female” transsexuals a ”bunch of bedwetters in bad wigs”. The context for this piece was that Burchill’s friend, SuzanneMoore, had posted a piece about body shaming women; who are being sold the idea the ideal body shape is one favoured by Brazilian “Transsexuals”. Cue threats of rape and violence which resulted in the police being called and, predictably, claiming to be unable to help.
The presenter omits the above context but does admit it plays into the current debate and claims, whilst once she was confident she was a woman, ”Now, I’m not so sure”.
Next up Alex Carlile explains how he became interested in the plight of transsexuals. He was approached by a female constituent about which he has this to say:
Carlile goes onto explain how his constituent had various difficulties being a female but ”living as a man”. He then claims his constituent faced difficulties in using male facilities because he could have been accused of doing something wrong. Females are always used to support this argument because we all know it’s not females who commit 99% of sex offences, overwhelmingly against women. Men are unlikely to by intimidated by a female who, according to Carlile, is indistinguishable from any other man.
We are informed that Carlile tabled a bill, as far back as 1996, to allow ”transsexuals” to change their birth certificates to reflect the sex they wish they were. I had a look at that debate and was struck by one comment which sheds light on why falsifying birth certificates was more acceptable than gay marriage, which by the way was not legalised until nearly a decade after the Gender Recognition Act. Note also that Press For Change were lobbying these Conservatives decades ago. (Source:Hansard).
The Bill did not pass but, Carlile explains, it piqued Labour’s interest. Next up Whittle waxes lyrical about the UK, Gender Recognition Act which is described as ”State of theArt” in comparison to ”anywhere in the world”. In just five short years Whittle would see the GRA as out of date and advocate for self-identification of ”sex”!
We have a slight detour at this point to explain that Whittle has a ”vested interest” in this debate as a ”transman”. We also hear about how Whittle now has a surgically constructed ”penis” but has kept some, unspecified, female parts so has a sort of “mixed body”. Next Whittle says the quiet part out loud.
Fidgen interjects with a question about how radical this is and, finally, brings in Julie Bindel, who explains it is, in reality, ultra conservative.
Whittles rebuttal of this point is astonishing, to me, makes perfect sense to anyone whose thought processes have been addled by Queer Theory. 🤦♂️
Jo goes back to Bindel to ask if Stephen has a point. Bindel cuts to the heart of the matter. Feminism wants to dismantly gender stereotypes, transgender people want to uphold them. They rely on stereotypes of masculinity and femininity so they have a template to ”perform” their gender.
Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male, repudiates this and claims he is quite scruffy and generally in jeans and T Shirts, even hoodies 🤷♀️. Pearce argues that Bindel is out of date. Stereotypical expectations are simply not a feature gender clinics anymore. Pearce claims he is a feminist and a trans perspective is not necessarily at odds with feminism. Ruth explains that he was seen as weird and strange as a teenage boy and was often asked if he was gay. His interests were typically associated with being a girl so now he identifies as one. To Ruth this is not shoring up stereotypes (🤔) and he believes, ultimately, we will abandon the categories of male and female. This is the magical thinking driving this ideology. Ruth thinks they are going to dismantle the ”gender binary” by, checks notes, aligning their own self-perception with what society says are typical interests for a woman. Ruth has rejected his sex on the basis of the very sexist stereotypes he claims he wants to destroy. Make it make sense!
Can’t defend what you can’t define.
Bizarrely the presenter thinks Pearce is agreeing with Bindel. To be clear, one of them is living a life embodying a stereotype which Bindel wants to dismantle. Bindel is not seeking the destruction of sex based categories which underpin women’s legal right to single sex spaces.
Hines, no not that one!
We are then introduced to a Cambridge Professor, Melissa Hines, to introduce some science. Hines is a neuroscientist and spends a lot of time working with people who have disorders of sexual development. I could take some headlines from her work which focus on toy preferences and ”gendered” brains influenced by higher than normal levels of testosterone. Hines recognises the importance of socialisation but also argues there are biological processes at work. This, seems perfectly plausible to me since humans are sexually dimorphic and evolution is likely to have introduced differential development in the sex that does the child-bearing. Conceding the complex interaction between nurture/nature doesn’t mean we are all biological essentialists who think women belong in the kitchen. It’s also important to retain some skepticism about claims in respect of #LadyBrains which is just as ideologically predicated as a 100% denial of the role of biology. Three books for anyone interested in following this up.
Hines lost me at this point, even the interviewer sounded a note of incredulity.
Hines therefore argues that exposure to higher levels of testosterone pre-disposes some females to adopt preferences associated with the opposite sex. Jo Fidgens adds in the known association of victims of childhood sexual abuse and a rejection of your sex. This gets little attention because we then proceed to discuss research into post mortem examinations of the brains of male transsexuals. Interestingly, Hines is on the fence about this research; questioning whether the experience of “gender dysphoria” causes the change in brain structure. (Search neuroplasticity).
James Barrett
James Barrett was lead clinician at a U.K Gender clinic and has appeared in my blogs frequently because he often appears as an expert witness in legal cases I have covered. Here he talks about how he would assess a patient who presented with gender identity issues. He makes if clear that the assessment must involve not just your self-identificaion but how you are percieved by others. This puts the burden for acceptance on females, in the main, who are mandated to #BeKind, validate these men and accept them men in our spaces. #NOThankyou
Born This Way?
Whilst accepting the evidence of a biological explanation is inconclusive we now consider the issue of Puberty Blockers. In 2011 the Tavistock Gender Clinic began experimenting /researching the effect of placing ”Gender Dysphoric” children on medication to block a natural puberty. This is still often described as a ”pause” and ”reversible”. It is not a ”pause” the long term impact is uncertain and 98%+ proceed to synthetic drugs to mimic the effects of cross-sex hormones. I have written about this a few times here:
Julie is right to point out the danger of over-diagnosis in young Lesbians and Gay males. Not conforming to sex stereotypes is elevated in children who, left alone, would become homosexual adults. These are the last figures I have on same sex attracted referrals to the Tavistock Gender Clinic. With all the fuss about the #GayConversionTherapy ban why haven’t people realise that the main place this is happening is at Gender Clinics?
Single sex spaces.
Julie Bindel then brings up an incident with a pre-operative male behaving aggressively in a space for vulnerable women. I think the law is misinterpreted here because it is technically permissible to exclude a male, even with a GRC, from a single sex space. Though it is correct to say too many organisations fail to apply this exception. Bindel then raises the issue of males in female prisons even when he has committed a an offence against a female.
Fidgen then puts this hypthetical to Lord Carlile which leads to this, astonishing, exchange. {Worth noting, at this point, that Carlile was head of a Penal Reform charity, the Howard League, for a number of years}.
We next take a detour to learn that Richard O’ Brien takes oestrogen for his 30% female part. Ruth Pearce thinks the next legal battle will be to recognise people who don’t identify as male, or female, and Whittle boasts about how we have been ”de-gendering the law for twenty years. Whittle then tells what I am certain they think is a cute anecdote about his three year old asking how they know their twins are girls. Whittle’s wife explains they don’t. They made a guess and the babies can tell them, when they are older, if they got it wrong. I find that a rather sinister tale.
This was Jo’s conclusion.
The Denton’s document is a must read to understand how we got here. I covered it here:
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights, gay rights and the healthy bodies of our kids. Trying to get one step ahead of the people who are deleting evidence as the medical scandal unfolds.
This is some content from YouTube. When I first penned this piece I could not find the original. Someone contacted me and alerted me to the YouTube which still exists. You can watch it here 👇
The screen shots I did, back in December 2020, are quite revealing.
Do it to Julia!
Hormones: Feminist, Transgender and Intersex
Before I begin a word about Whittle. Whittle is female but has taken testosterone, had multiple surgeries and adopted what they believe is a man’s ”gender” role. This would appear to be Whittle’s idea of ”living as a man”. Asked why the on-line discussions, about the Gender Recognition act, were so male-dominated with a noticeable absence of “transmen” this was the answer given: 👇 Sproggets! 🤷♀️ (Clip from that radicalisation portal that is mumsnet).
For background about Whittle here is an interview they did with ChristineBurns, of the Trans Lobby Group, PressForChange.
In this interview Whittle explains their sexual attraction to both sexes but how they married a woman. They have four children. Whittle fought to gain the right for their partner to be artificially inseminated, with donor sperm; also tried, thankfully failed, to be recorded as the “father” on the children’s birth certificates. Whittle was brought up in a council house on one of the largest council estates in Europe. The father sounds rather abusive and this is one of the stories Whittle tells about him. One wonders what toll it takes on the female psyche to be presented with such an overt display of aggressive male dominance?
The fact this was triggered by wearing apparel, traditionally reserved for the male sex class, is also intriguing. Is Whittle’s entire life a fuck you to the Father or an over-identification with the oppressor class? A strategy of escape or one for dominance? I suggest it is a combination of the two.
There are complex reasons for females to reject their sex class, some of them invite our compassion; such as extreme sexual abuse /paternal violence. Girls learn early that inhabiting a female body invites unwanted sexual contact. My compassion, for Whittle, is severely limited by the role they have played in throwing the bodies of other women in the paths of dangerous men. In the dismantling of women’s same sex spaces Whittle is, perhaps unwittingly, behaving like Winston Smith in 1984. Whittle’s life is one long “Do it to Julia”.
One of the ways Whittle harms women is a denial that male pattern offending remains the same in those who identify as ”trans”. One claim made in the Guardian had to be retracted.
The reality is the pattern of sex offending remains exactly the same. There is thus no argument for removing single sex spaces for women.
Whittle also had a side hustle of writing for porn magazines. The overlap between porn-saturated culture and trans identities is such a central feature of this ”community”. At least Whittle turned a profit.
Transitioned States: Hormones: Whittle et al.
Now to the event at which Whittle spoke. It was chaired by JoWinning who works with Zoe Playdon running a course in Medical Humanities. I cover Zoe Playdon in this blog post. 👇
Whittle is preceded by a campaigner on intersex rights, Valentino Vecchietti, who raises the issue of medicalising children with variations in sex characteristics /Disorders of Sexual development without informed consent. He includes the removal of gonads which leads to lifelong dependence on hormones, issues with bone density and sterility. This is precisely the same set of issues with blocking puberty but, of course, the “trans” lobby doesn’t want to talk about that. Vecchietti talks about “trans” and “queer” children. This is a clip from one of their slides.
The next speaker is Celia Roberts, a professor of Gender and Science Studies. 😳. She talks, with breathless excitement about hormones as agents of social change.
Roberts has studied hormones for twenty years and is clearly very enthusiastic about their use:
And here she goes 👇
Despite this, I found her quite a compelling speaker as she covers the role of hormones in factory farming, and horses bred to produce female hormones. The horse hormones were for use in both menopausal women and for trans-identified males. She points out that hormones extracted this way were found to be harmful to menopausal women but was strangely silent about the risks to trans-identified males. She does explore ways in which the administering of hormones can be “oppressive” and this includes the chemical castration of sex offenders and the hyper-stimulation of the ovaries of surrogate mothers in India. Nothing about what is happening to kids at gender abattoirs, though. She says that withholding hormones can also be oppressive though she does say using hormones should be approached with caution. Well worth watching and she drops the names of some “queer biologists” should you feel inclined to further research.
Stephen Whittle
Now we come to Whittle’s part. He opens with a slide about what you would do if you were offered a “happy pill”.
Whittle claims this question is routinely asked at Gender Identity Clinics here (U.K) and the United States. Whittle proceeds to say that of course people would answer yes but no such pill exists for “trans” people.
Are you happy with what you have done?
This is next of the slides Whittle uses to defend their work. People have criticised the impact on the Butch Lesbian community by the widespread “transitioning“ of Lesbian women. Whittle is often heckled by Lesbians, we are informed. Clearly they are perfectly aware of the impact on the Lesbian community. In this talk Whittle boasts that Butch Lesbians approach her and say they wish they had the guts to ”transition”. I was left with the impression that Whittle’s response to this, legitimate concern, is one of mockery.
Whittle goes on to describe “Butch Dykes” as unable to receive sexual pleasure and rejects this life for ”himself”.
Here Whittle shares a slide about the meteoric rise in girls referred to the U.K main Gender Clinic. This is a cause for concern to many, rational, people but, to Whittle, it is a sign of the success of the Trans Lobby. This is a cause for celebration because the stigma of being ”trans”, {becoming a lifelong dependent on the pharmaceutical industry} has been removed. As you can see kids as young as three are being referred to the Tavistock (Gender Identity Development Service G.I.Ds). If Whittle had checked with adult clinics they would not find a concomitant rise in adult females coming out as “men”. . 🤷♀️
Whittle knows autistic people are also over-represented at Gender Clinics. The phenomenon is so widely known trans-activists cannot deny it. Their spin is that theories about the origins of autism proves the idea of a wrongly sexed brain. An alternative hypothesis is the difficulties of responding to social cues makes many autistic kids less able to navigate social expectations for their sex. If much of sex stereotypical expectations is embedded via socialisation this explains why autistic males, and females, may find themselves out of step with their peers. Transgender Ideology promotes the idea these kids are really ”trans”.
Females with autism are often under-diagnosed so their prevalence at Gender clinics is even more striking. One theory about late diagnosis hinges on female socialisation providing autistic girls with better ”masking” skills. They are taught better social cues because ”reading” other people is a survival skill for the female sex class. As a result they “pass” as neuro typical, better than their male counterparts. Whittle also these youths often have co-morbidities of mental health issues. This still doesn’t raise any alarm bells for the Trans party faithful. Instead this is put down to ”minority stress”.
Here are some figures shared by an Autistic society. As you can see as many as 30% have autistic traits. Females, with diagnosed autism, are over-represented by 10:1.
Here the high priestess of the Church of Gender even claims affirming a ”gender identity” can cure autism. (This clip is taken from a discussion Dr Jo had with our own Helen Webberley of Gender GP infamy, on their podcast).
Next slide, as I recall, was to deflect criticism about trans obsession with sartorial choices indicating a ”transgender” identity. Here Whittle is saying ”Lesbians do it too”.
Here Whittle points to the rejection of female attire by ”trans” identified females. Notice that trans boys ”hate” and trans ”girls” desire the pink and frilly.
This was an interesting aside. Whittle calls Julie Bindel a friend though they disagree. The argument that, in an ideal world, nobody would feel the need to become dependent on pharmaceuticals /surgeries to live an ”authentic life” should be the mainstream opinion. It is, however, now likened to some sort of demonic plan for mass extermination.
My “happy pills”!
Here Whittle simply promotes #BigPharma. This section was introduced, by Whittle, as about my ”happy pills”. The impact of male levels of, synthetic, testosterone on a female are quite different to the impact on a natal male. The slide should have examined the impact of synthetic testosterone on a female body. Whittle could have refected on the elevated risk of multiple sclerosis (x7) for males taking synthetic hormones which mimic oestrogen at levels not normally found in males. Whittle also has multiple sclerosis but has no hesitation promoting drugs enhancing the risk for natal males. Trans-identified males are also having their testosterone blocked so, presumably this slide could be used as is a cautionary tale for them.
Here are some side effects. Obviously some of these are desired for those in flight from their sex. This is from a site targeting menopausal women so it says nothing about the impact on fertility or vaginal atrophy and elevated risk for a medically necessary hysterectomy.
I know there are professional feminists who are critical of media outlets that put the spotlight on individual Trans Lobbyists. I have no such hesitation. It is because of this ideology that our gay boys are on the #TuringTreatment and our young Lesbians are having, unnecessary, double mastectomies. Also in case you think Whittle is going to stop here is an interview where Whittle advocates forcing women to give up single sex spaces. Whittle is no friend to women.
Time for a spotlight on the vichy women collaborating with this ideology and placing their own, excessive, need for validation above the harms to women, girls and gay boys.
If you are able to support my work you can do so here.
The document makes it clear that the definition of “trans” includes post-operative, pre-operative ”transsexuals” but also part-time cross-dressers and those who have no intention of any physical changes.
Burns is a little bit coy about the reasons men don the garb associated with women and the nature of the pleasure this yields. Here is a little bit about Transvestic Fetishism, a paraphilia according to the Diagnostic Manual version 5. (It has now been renamed ”transvestic disorder”). As you can see men get sexually aroused by wearing women’s garments.
What I found interesting is that man with autogynephilia will take up hobbies they associate with the female sex. One such is knitting! I can think of two prominent TRAs who have taken up the hobby. Our politicians rank men, with a sexual fetish for being women, higher up in the ”woman” stakes than actual women!
Mis-Gendering
There follows an emotive section on the pain of being misgendered which will be received as a ”body blow to everything she is trying to achieve” . They so clearly want “mis-gendering” i.e. correctly sexing, to be an actual crime. It is already treated as a hate crime in the U.K but in other jurisdictions it is an actual crime. This is from New York:
Not a mental illness
The policy is keen to deny that believing you were born with the brain of the opposite sex is not a mental illness. This recurs throughout the document.
The document does concede that people with mental disorders can mistake themselves as ”trans”, they are not to be confused with Christine who is ”true trans”, of course. There is a lot of shame involved in autogynephilia hence the invention of ”transgender” which legitimises men with a fetish.
Third Genders.
Burns also makes reference to the way other cultures have accommodated, usually males, who don’t conform to societal expectations for their sex. They are usually gay men. (This may very well be a benign accommodation in some cultures but certainly the use of young boys, as Hjira, in India, appears to facilitate their sexual exploitation by older males). It is misleading, and cultural appropriation, to use these arguments to claim legal accommodations for heterosexual males with sexual paraphilia. The claim there is a ”widely understood” acceptance there are more than two sexes is also wishful thinking, in 2008. Even in 2022 it is only dominant in our political and media elite, it is a luxury belief.
The law
Where the policy covers the law it is deliberately obtuse and contradictory. In this section it acknowledges the Genuine Occupational Requirements that allow sex specific recruitment. Thus males, can be, legally, excluded from certain roles and spaces. An example would be a rape crisis centre for female victims of male, sexual violence. Burns is keen to stress that these exceptions are ”limited” and ”rare”.
The policy even implies that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate is not covered by these exceptions. In a section about allowing the exclusion of someone “undergoing” gender reassignment Burn’s acknowledges an employer could exclude someone from shared accommodation.
But then adds this caveat.
The Gender Recognition Act is bad law. There have not been enough legal challenges to test its application, in respect of single sex spaces. However, it is legal to exclude any male, even with a GRC, from, for example, becoming a counsellor to female rape victims. The cynic in me says this legislation was drafted in a purposefully muddled way to allow activists, like Burns, to exploit the confusing, contradictory, wording.
Sexual Orientation v Gender Identity Group
While reading this document I came across a reference to a group I had not encountered before.
I cannot find details of who sat on this group but they certainly accessed quite a lot of government funding. This is from Hansard: 👇
I would love to know more about this group. Was Burns a member? Who were the gay men /Lesbians in that group? Did any of them object to same sex attraction being redefined as ”same gender” attraction and did they anticipate the emergence of male “lesbians” and female ”gay men”?
IRAN
Membership of SOGIAG interests me because I would like to know if any of them realised there may be a conflict of interest between the G and the T? Which gay men is Burns talking to such that nobody picked him up on this section?
For Burns to include this without any reference to the consequences visited on Gay men, in particular, takes my breath away. (This also happens to Lesbians).
Real Life Experience (RLE) & Woman-Fishing
Burns goes into some detail about how a man convinces the Gender Recognition Panel they are eligible for a GRC. This overlaps with any attempt to get the surgery known as ”Sexual Reassignment Surgery”. The panel requires evidence that the applicant has been “living as a woman”. All of this is at the “pre-op” stage so here is Burns stating that they should be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex. Women are therefore needed to ”validate” this ”identity” ; used as sort of spiritual midwives for the “woman” trapped in a man’s body. Burns proceeds to give examples such as not requiring any male, if he does not acknowledge his sex, to be placed in a side room at a hospital. Instead the women are to be forced to perform ”sisterhood”.
None of the men passing these laws, or the women, have thought of how offensive this is, to women. Imagine if Rachael Dolezal had been able to compel the Black community to accept her, while wearing Black Face? Why is men performing caricatures of women, some hyper-sexualised, not called out as “ Woman-Fishing” ?
For those of you unaware there is a backlash against, usually celebrities, for adopting a presentation that suggests a racial identity other than their own. Exhibit A :
Final Thoughts.
As far back as 2008 activists liked to pretend a public debate on this attack on women’s rights had taken place.
Only a trans person is able to describe their lived experience but a male should be trusted when he claims to speak as a “woman” with ”lived experience”.
I do agree with Burns here 👇. Surgery doth not a woman make:
I have left much out because it has been covered by other guidance in this series. Full document included 👆in case anyone feels the need to highlight some of the other egregious statements in this policy. We have created, yet another, sacred caste. It is not going well for women, the gay community and the safeguarding of children.
If you are able to support my research here is a way. My content will remain free.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s pernicious impact on our culture, women’s rights, gay rights and the safeguarding of vulnerable children/youth.
I did a piece on Barbie Kardashian for Graham Linehan’s substack; a seriously disturbed young man with convictions for violent attacks on women. Brought up by an abusive father he was recruited to join in the violent assaults on his mother. I have reproduced this on my blog with a link to the court case which brought this young boy to my attention. Now he identifies as a “woman” and has been transferred to the female estate, in Limerick Prison. He has not only committed serious violence against women but he threatens sexual violence and has a specific resentment for the female sex.
I blogged on him here. Article contains links to the original court transcript, relating to a previous detention order. This was prior to his current conviction for which I have not managed to get a court transcript.
Limerick Prison was subject to an official inspection in April 2021. At that time three males, with a transgender identity, were held in the female estate. Limerick Prison houses both males and females who are, normally, held separately.
Because males are generally held in the estate suitable for their sex the inspections cover the male and the female experience. For the females one of the issues raised was lack of access to tampons even through there was a scheme to provide them free of charge.
The other issues mentioned were the lack of any toilet facilities, for females, in the exercise yard. There were facilities for males. Without a trace of irony the inspection report points out their own recommendation which states women should be allowed time to exercise “out of sight of male prisoners”. The total and utter disrespect shown by making female prisons mixed sex and still feigning support for women’s dignity!
That is about as much attention as they gave to female prisoners. But they do spend an inordinate length of time angsting about the male sex /violent offenders they have put on the women’s wing.
The Yogyakarta principles are a document drawn up by some of the more extreme trans-activists. These principles have no standing in international law despite being referred to by many HuMAN rights organisations, who claim they promote best practice. One of the men involved recently broke ranks to criticise them and admit that too little thought was given to the rights of women. Robert Wintemute, one of the signatories, to the principles admits the rights of women were not given sufficient consideration. 👇
The Irish Prison Inspectorate seems to have fully aligned with the Yogyakarta principles as they demonstrate below. 👇 Note the prisoner has a voice about where they are placed in the prison accommodation. What about the women?
Ireland operates on the self-identification principle such that even a male with a history of violent/sexual abuse of women is not precluded from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. There is no safeguarding built into this process. Any man who claims to identify as a “woman” is granted a GRC. This has created the inhumane policy of housing males in female prisons. (Not just Ireland, by the way, Scotland allows “self-id” and so do England. There are no female prisons in Wales. I don’t know the situation in Northern Ireland).
Now we come to the conditions in which the males, with a claimed trans-identity, are held. They are held in their prison cells for 23 out of 24 hours. They appear to have single cells, which are somewhat of a rarity in Irish prisons. I agree it is inhuman to restrict prisoners in this way, unless the alternative is to expose women to risk. Notice the Irish prison service have adopted the language of gender identity ideologues so you have to do some mental gymnastics to realise we are not talking about women here. We are talking about males. At least one of those males is a grave danger to women.
The situation for these detainees is, I agree, likely to be causing them psychological harm. However, the risk to females, if they were allowed free association, is likely to be more than psychological.
If ever there was a prisoner that could use access to a “listening” service whilst in prison this person would appear to be one. However, having read some prisoner accounts of the “listener” service it would appear it is not an unmitigated good. The service is run by other prisoners and there are reports some use information shared, by vulnerable prisoners, for nefarious reasons. It is not clear if the “listeners” are male or female.
I would agree. 👆 the prison service are in an impossible position. Forced to allocate dangerous males, in a female wing, afraid of the consequences of fully unleashing them on the female population, then criticised for segregating them. Either the trans-identified, and male, prisoner is placed in a solitary /segregated scenario or they are allowed to mix with “general population”. The population referenced here would appear to mean the women on the wing. The prison service would be forced to deploy staff to protect, potential, female victims.
The Prison confirms that the processes needed to protect these trans-identified males are labour intensive. Nowhere do the prison inspectors cover the issue of the risk to actual females by forcing the prison to adopt the, naive, recommendations of the Yogyakarta Principles. They do at least manage to include a reference to female staff being coerced into giving bodily searches to males.
The prisoners have complained about mis-gendering so naturally the prison staff are also to be forced to undergo re-education programmes. Prison staff will be forced to call a violent male, with a deep seated loathing of women “Barbie”.
The prison inspectorate mandates prison staff should receive training on LGBT + issues. They do not recommend any training covering the impact, on females, of being housed with males. Males, let me remind you, with histories of violence /sex offending against women. This is despite the fact that female prisoners have been shown to be disproportionately impacted by domestic violence and sexual assaults, by men.
As far as I can ascertain the requirement to draft a new policy has not yet been undertaken or is not yet published on the Irish Prison service website. The inspectorate makes clear, in its action plan, they will be closely monitoring compliance with the LGBT+ training. This will be developed in collaboration with an appropriate civil society organisation, which, I infer, means a Trans Lobby group. The transgender prisoners will also get a voice in this training. Not the women. The Inspectorate also require attendance numbers and frequency of delivery/updates to the training programme. Big Brother is watching you!
The interesting double-think required for these policies is evident in the policy written for the Scottish Prison Service. The policy for trans-identified females, in Scotland, specifically highlights the danger of sexual assault to a female held in the male estate. Trans-identified men are invariably held in the female estate. Sex would appear to matter for the trans community after all. The Scottish policy does claim the trans-identified females should be given a choice. The other women get no choice about forcible detention with males.
Would love to see the LGBT training materials the prison are now using. They provided them, to the inspectorate, in June 2021. They don’t appear to be available on their website.
Since writing about the Birmingham Trans Policy, an informant told me there was a longer document called The Procedure for supporting Transgender People. I decided to have a look and see what it adds!
I decided to look at hospital policies around single sex wards, after the revelation a woman was not only raped on an NHS ward, but then gaslit by the hospital. Imagine telling a victim “you were not raped because there were no men on the ward!”. There were. One of them was a rapist. If you are not aware of this incident I covered it here:
This document provides lots of guidance about ensuring a ”trans-identifying” person’s sex remains private. This covers staff and patients which is why staff are colluding with the idea the man, you can clearly identify is a man, is really a woman, they are compelled to hide this information. If the patient /staff member has a Gender Recognition Certificate this is enforced by the law.
This is what the Gender Recognition Act says about maintaining privacy. As you can see any disclosure of the ”protected information” attracts an unlimited fine.
Bearing in mind no medical treatment is required. A fully intact male could identify as a woman, non-binary, gender fluid etc etc and Birmingham hospital will act on a self-ID basis. This means they allow males on ”single sex” wards purportedly for females. They are allowed to use female toilets and changing rooms.
The implication for medical notes and treatment seem to be incredibly ill thought out. Clinicians are instructed to record a male as a woman. No reference should be made to the patients biological sex, unless it is deemed relevant.
It is worth pointing out that there is an entire medical field on sex specific medicine which aimed to redress the assumption that males are the default patient. Article below:
Staff are warned to ask the patient’s permission to record any issue pertinent to their sex. What if the trans-identifying person is so deeply immersed, in their fiction, they can’t face anyone knowing? There are prominent trans activists, who are male, who claim to be Adult Human Females. India Willoughby even claimed to have a cervix. 🤦
Some of these people seem to need protecting from themselves, not enabled.
As in the policy, the trans person is to be allowed to decide which sex they wish to be allocated. The women get no choice. Staff are told it is not acceptable to make use of side-rooms. This is by far the best resolution and hardly something to complain about, unless your motivation is a desire to be validated by hospitalised women.
The procedure also makes it clear that treatment can be withheld and patients /visitors can be barred if they behave in a discriminatory manner. Does this include correctly sexing a man and objecting to being places on a mixed sex ward?
How do you foster good relations between the people with the protected characteristic of SEX (everybody) when you are forcing the female people to share space with males? They even have the cheek to head this Single Sex. Again unisex facilities are rejected as an option, for the trans-identifying person, but women are forced into mixed sex spaces. The common sense solution is rejected because this is about women being forced to act as, unpaid, validation aids for dysphoric males /entitled men.
Here is what the Trust claims are examples of unlawful discrimination. Some of this is ethically dubious, compelled speech and it is doubtful whether these would be found unlawful now gender critical beliefs are protected in law.
Here are some case studies: Here it is made clear that women will be forced to accept a man on their ward. Rachel is now ”female”. 🧐
Here they make it clear misgendering will be treated as a disciplinary offence. We have gone way beyond polite concessions. From #BeKind to #BeCompliant.
There follow two examples where a patient refuses to be treated by a “Tranny”. The use of this pejorative language allows the Hospital to refuse to provide an alternative person to treat them. I notice they do not use an example of a female, in respectful language, asking for intimate care to be provided, by someone of the same sex. This is, I would suggest, is done quite deliberately.
Finally a note on who Birmingham thinks are appropriate sources of guidance on this topic. All Trans Lobbyist who take extremist positions. Birmingham are a Stonewall Champion, last time I checked.
I can relate 👇
You can support my work here. We need to dismantle this dangerous ideology one expose at a time.
This will be a series looking at the experience of people, with a trans-identity, who are embarking on dating lives. I will look first at this research.
Here is the abstract. As you can see they express surprise that Lesbians exclude biological males! 😳. That should give you your first clue.
Funded by Federal Government.
Please not that this is funded via a Research Council which attracts Federal Funding. So this is no longer a fringe ideology. This has State backing.
More on the funding body.
Background
Things you are expected to believe before you begin. Sex is an arbitrary classification system. Someone’s proclaimed ”genderidentity” takes precedence over biological sex. Excluding trans-identified people from your dating pool is akin to racism. By not dating this group you are denying trans-people vital, social support. Sexual orientation is “fluid” so you cannot hide behind a Lesbian/Gay identity. Data that includes both men and women in the opposite sex category makes sense.
The research begins with a whistle-stop tour of dating history covering the, relatively new, emergence of dating based on personal preferences. Marrying for love is a new social norm. They proceed to cover the fact that inter-racial marriage and marrying across class boundaries has, historically, been frowned upon. Many of these unions were seen as immoral and even disgusting. They even have the cheek to point out how recent the acceptance of same sex relationships is; whilst simultaneously problematising Lesbians, who exclude males who identify as “transgender women”.
They proceed to make up words to imply choosing your partner, based on their biological sex is a new form of societal prejudice, to be overcome.
Reality Check!
I was moved to add a series on this topic because these arguments, intended to unmoor us from our sex bodies, are gaining traction, in elite discourse. They are now also taught to our children /youth.
I have had personal DM’s from young females who now identify as gay men. What sort of dating future awaits these vulnerable females? This is one outcome: 👇
Here a gay man defends his sexual boundaries:
Here Ray Blanchard points out that these females are in for a rude awakening.
Back to Phallus in Wonderland
This research attempted to assess how ”trans-inclusive are modern dating patterns. They asked 960 people to indicate if they would date a trans-identified person. (Sample dropped to 958 because two were not interested in sexual relationships.) This is a graph of the responses.
People were categorised by their sexual orientation and whether they were a ”man”, ”woman” or in one of the variously labelled “queer” categories. It is quite confusing because the categories are based on how you identify, until they disaggregate the data by natal sex (which they call “cisgender”.) They don’t provide graphs which display ”cisgender” choices because this would invalidate the trans-identified people. Of course it doesn’t make sense without referencing ”cisgender“ dating preferences so you can find it if you read carefully.
What this means is that even when including people with a trans-identity, as if they were their desired sex, patterns of exclusion still remain high. There does not appear to be a graph showing participants by their natal sex, even in the, published, supplementary data. They do state that patters of exclusion were higher in ”cisgender” people. Only 13% of people, who acknowledge their biological sex, say they would be open to dating someone who wishes to be treated as the opposite sex/claim another ”trans” label.
The authors offer a number of explanations for this strange phenomenon; which has evolved over millennia to further the survival of the species. The idea that sexual attraction can be dismissed as a societal prejudice is ludicrous. There are many theories about why homosexuality evolved but the existence of same sex attraction is now being widely dismissed by trans-activists. It is even more egregious when you consider the fight for same sex attraction to be accepted. Heterosexuals have not had to fight for our rights so it is interesting that the most trans-inclusive demographic (Lesbians), outside of the ”queer” identified, come in for the most criticism.
Where did the Lesbian’s go “wrong”.
Apparently it is not enough to accept trans-identified people in your dating pool. You have to be inclusive in the correct way. In order to expose trans-inclusive Lesbians the author invented the idea of ”congruent” dating. By this logic it is argued that Lesbians are attracted to ”women” and thus, theoretically, should be open to dating women and men who identify as women. In news that should surprise nobody the trans-inclusive Lesbians are only accepting of “transmen” i.e. persons of the same sex. This is variously described as “misgendering” and evidence of biological determinism.
Other explanations
Different suggestions for the exclusionary/ incongruent dating practices were advanced.
Perhaps some were confused by the definitions? 🤔
Cis-sexism/Cisgenderism. People *still* don’t see trans-bodies as ”natural”. Perhaps they are hyper-focused on genitals?
Another argument was put forward about the higher rates of exclusion of trans-identified males. This was ascribed to “masculine privilege”. The author’s argue that society privileges the ”masculine presenting” which means feminine-expressing males are subject to an extra layer of prejudice. Thus, in clownfish world, the normal hierarchy of the male sex in a position of dominance has been inverted in clownfish world.
Can you be overly-inclusive?
Turns out you can! Some people displayed incongruent dating patterns by including gender identities they are not supposed to be attracted to. So, if a trans-man, who identifies as gay, include a (female) Lesbian and a trans-man they are being untrue to their same gender attraction. Any combination that deviates from the gender rules risks undermining core tenets of the religious texts. Turns out some trans-identifying people are having sex like gender apostates!
Can you be transphobic and ”trans”?
Yep! Turns out some ”trans-men” who are ”heterosexual” only want to date “cisgender” women. This is put down to an excessive need for validation. By excluding males, who identify as women they are behaving like a cisgender supremacist.
Turns out even those with a transgender identity can be guilty of believing in sexual dimorphism and be guilty of being a trans person in the tweets and a Terf between the sheets.
Turns out the heretics are inside the house! We did not even get into enbyphobia!
Turns out it is not so easy to socially engineer a new reality denying ideology. Finally, after all the rape-adjacent rhetoric the authors claim they are not denying bodily autonomy and free choice about our sexual partners.
No! We just want you to examine your prejudice.
There was a lot to unpack in this paper so I may revisit it.
You can support my work here: All donations are welcome, but only if you have spare cash and want to amplify dissenting voices, and offset the billions funding the dissemination of Gender Identity Ideology.
A look at hospital policies around single sex wards, after the revelation this week that a woman was not only raped on an NHS ward, but then gaslit by the hospital. Imagine telling a victim “you were not raped because there were no men on the ward!”. There were. One of them was a rapist. If you are not aware of this incident I covered it here:
Here are some lowlights. Firstly it doesn’t just have a policy for people who identify as the opposite sex it is more wide-ranging /inclusive, for which read ”reckless” .
The policy is from 2019 and was signed off by the Chief Executive Advisory Group. I imagine there were very senior people involved in this nonsense. If you are in Birmingham, the policy is up for review in August 2022. Maybe send some feedback?
This is the first lie. The policy lists the legally protected characteristics and claims to uphold them all. The policy does not respect the protected characteristic of SEX. The clue is in the word “inclusive”. The problem with the word ”discrimination”, in the context of these policies, is that single sex wards are, by their very nature, discriminating. We exercised our judgement that women need safe spaces away from the sex class that does 99% of the sex offending mainly against females. We know some males represent a risk to females, so we sex segregate where women are likely to be vulnerable. Females who predate on males are vanishingly small, in number. Labelling excluding the opposite sex with a word, used as a pejorative, denies women’s right to withhold consent. I do not consent to share accommodation with a male, however he identifies, especially when I am at my most vulnerable.
The Trust, in their collective madness, sorry, wisdom, have decided to go beyond the law. Is this an attempt to curry favour with Stonewall, of whose scheme they are a paid up member? The language of ”assigned at birth” is Gender Identity New Speak to describe the process of recognising and recording biological sex. A process which is unproblematic in near a 100% of cases, despite propaganda to the contrary. The Trust also intend to recognise people who claim to be ”non-binary”, ”gender fluid” and ”non-gendered”. It also encompasses staff who demand compliance with their subjective sense of self. A polite fiction is not the same as enforced compliance and this policy demands adherence to the new religion. To which I say #NoThankYou .
The patient’s pronouns must be respected (wait till you see the list 😳). Here the respected medical professionals mean your BIOLOGICAL SEX may impact your treatment. Mother Nature doesn’t give a fig about your ”gender”.
These policies always contain an attack on families. I support my son, thank you very much, I affirm his sex and his sexual orientation and I do not approve of the NHS putting gay boys on the Turing Treatment. Here the Trust clearly intends to stoke family conflict by contradicting parents and other family members.
This section uses the obfuscatory techniques perfected by gender identity extremists. In one breath talking about ”same sex accommodation” but clearly elevating gender feelz above material reality. Heaven forfend the trans-identified person be offended by being offered a single room. No, they should be allowed to ride roughshed over issues of consent and be imposed on other patients. I do not consent to be a validation aid for someone who insists I recognise them as something they are not. Notice the pussyfooting around the new sacred caste.
This bit is bonkers. I am particularly irritated at the casual misuse of male and female. Bad enough the rest of the mangled language. A bearded man in an elevated state of anxiety, possibly with a sexual paraphilia, on a female ward! What could possibly go wrong?
People who are medicating with wrong sex hormones and following surgeries are at elevated risk of being hospitalised. There have already been cases of a heavily pregnant female, where pregnancy was not suspected because she was taking testosterone. She lost the baby because medical intervention was delayed.
Despite claiming to protect ”sex” the hospital allows men into female toilets and changing rooms. This policy also applies to the staff toilets and changing rooms.
Disciplinary procedures will be invoked against any staff member who complains. Patients and members of the public will also be dealt with. The Trust then have the temerity to suggest they abide by the duty to foster good relations between different protected characteristics. The wording below is misleading because everybody is covered by at least three of the protected characteristics. We all have a sex, a sexual orientation and we are all covered if we either have a religious belief or we do not. Not for the first time I don’t think the dversity disciples are sending their best people.
This is an important paragraph. Occupational requirements are how women (mainly) were able to carve out some female only spaces for women who had escaped domestic violence or were recovering from sexual assault. Some roles can be advertised for females only. The erosion of this right, in practice if not in law, is how we find ourselves with a man heading up a Rape Crisis centre, ostensibly for women, in Scotland. The naivete of top decision makers about male compulsion to violate women’s boundaries is so staggering it is criminally culpable.
Another mis-statement of the law appears below. Having failed to pass a law allowing self-identification into the rights of the opposite sex, the solution is to LIE. According to this hospital ”Gender Reassignment” legal protections cover some bloke with she in his email footer. The policy also states that the ”transgender” employee does not have to disclose their identity, which is the mess we got ourselves into with draconian penalties if privacy clauses are breached in the GRA. Allowing someone to conceal their sex was a big mistake.
There are some complicated instructions about how to make sure, when a sex marker is changed, the resulting, new, NHS number is populated with the previous medical history. It seems a reasonable supposition that all this complicates medical treatment in a highly pressurised environment. Blood results for many different conditions tell a different story for the different sexes. We are only in our infancy, for example, in looking at the way heart attack symptoms are different in females. Throw in the complications from taking cross-sex hormones and we are looking at a risky landscape. Many years ago an older male, who defined as transsexual, commented that there was a requirement to sign a document acknowledging SRS had not, literally, changed your sex. Imagine the uproar if this was the case in 2022.
I will leave you with a couple of clips from the glossary and some homework on the pronouns Birmingham hospital staff are expected to get to grips with. Why we are catering to this ridiculous, incoherent, contradictory ideology? I will never understand. It’s collective madness. Caligula would be proud.
Test at the end? My pronouns are F.O. Anyone with a pronoun app on their phone should be shunned.
You can support my work here. We need to dismantle this dangerous ideology one expose at a time.
