Queering the NSPCC? Part Two: What it means to be Transgender.

ChildLine YouTube Content.

Following on from part one I began to look at how the ChildLine youtube account and noticed it was saturated in Trans Ideology. Thus far I have not found any Lesbian content. I am still working my way through and will post any content that validates actual, same sex attracted, Lesbians. Yes, I know I should not need to clarify that same sex orientation involves biological sex.

Since 2006 ChildLine is run by the NSPCC. The NSPCC isn’t just any children’s charity. It is the only one with statutory powers to remove children from parents. This is enshrined in law to facilitate the removal of children from abusive parents. How the NSPCC decides what constitutes abuse, matters. The NSPCC is so saturated in Queer Theory and the idea that children are #BornInTheWrongBody. What happens if the definition of abuse covers parents who refuse to medicalise “trans-identifying kids? Anyone watching what is happening in Canada will know this is not far fetched. A Canadian father lost his battle to prevent his daughter accessing Puberty Blockers and Cross Sex hormones. His contact with his daughter has been, legally, restricted to on-line interactions, for three years. An initial judgement informed him that refusing to use preferred pronouns would be treated as “family violence”. You can read the full judgement here

This clip is illustrative of how far parental responsibility is being undermined in Canada. 👇

With this context in mind I decided to work through ChildLine content to see what our kids are learning from ChildLine. This is the second post on this topic. The first covers what the NSPCC/ChildLine are teaching our children about porn. Queering the NSPCC? Part One.

What it means to be Transgender?

The topic of this log is a ChildLine youtube on What it means to be Transgender. The interviewees were Fox Fisher, who identifies as Non-Binary, and Mr Lewzer who identifies as a transman. Fisher is a relatively well known trans activist who has appeared in NHS guidance, School Transgender packs and in the media. MrLewzer is a Transman with a popular youtube channel. Mr Lewzer has also appeared in NHS training guidance as provided by the Transgender Lobby group GIRES. (Gender Identity Research and Education Service) 👇

A link to the video, on YouTube here. (Backed up in case of revisionism)

Here also is a transcript transcription of ChildLine Fox Fisher Transgender

The video begins with an attempt at a definition of what it means to be Transgender. Fisher tells us that this means you don’t “feel connected to the Gender they were assigned at birth”. Claiming that sex is “assigned” at birth is pure Trans Ideology. Sex is simply observed and recorded in all but an, infinitesimally, small number of cases. For some people, born with disorders/differences in sexual development, it may not be straightforward. The baby may need chromosomal/ karyotype tests. Discussion of trans identity often conflates these very different issues. There is no evidence that there is a significant correlation between people with DSDs and people with a Transgender Identity. Indeed, in the U.K., research was undertaken which resulted in the discontinuation of karyotype testing, at Gender Identity Clinics. Source for this 👇 quote here

Defining the undefinable

There’s lots more incoherent & inconsistent statements about “gender” . Gender is a spectrum between male and female; but some people don’t identify with either; and it’s really an individual choice. Valiant attempts are made to separate “Gender Expression“ from “Gender Identity” but they all return to superficial signifiers like dress and hair. . Good luck codifying “Gender Identity” into law based on these nebulous descriptions. Gender Identity is a faith based and subjective belief system. Best stick with the fact that we are Sexually Dimorphic and reserve compassion for the tiny number of people with DSDs who genuinely need some specific accommodations.

Hallelujah!

Mr Lewzer explains that some people wish to modify their body but some do not. Mr Lewzer tells us “It’s a misconception that hormones and surgery make you a man or a woman”

Sadly this display of logic was short-lived. In a further elucidation of the point we are told, regardless of any bodily modification, it is incumbent on the rest of us to accept a Self-identified gender. Acceptance without Exception!

Terminology. Keep up!

Fox: “I no longer use the term Female to Male. To me it implies that I was female. I think a lot of people find that problematic”.

Lewzer explains that they do use the term, MTF, for simplicity’s sake. Though they also add:

Amy, the interviewer, helpfully explains that using the language of “ the community“ , is all about being “considerate of what other people feel”. Tricky territory when this clip illustrates the acceptable language is contested even within the community. The interviewer is also pushing a version of the #BeKind, faux-feminism that places the majority burden, and risk, on females, forced to affirm males as literal females.

Strategic Deployment of “Transmen”

It’s also notable that post-medicalised females are often centred in particular discussions. Testosterone packs a punch on the female body so, Transmen are often “passing”. Whilst they don’t typically, present a threat to biological males , in female spaces they are likely to disrupt a social norms. They may find themselves in no-mans land. If women read you as male they will respond accordingly. At best they will feel uncomfortable. Male To Female (MTF) are less likely to pass and will be coded male in female spaces. Fox Fisher helpfully interjects to correct the, problematic terminology of “passing” . Apparently we should not use it because some people don’t aspire to pass as the opposite sex. Right. Thus far it’s as clear as mud.

Amy follows up on her appeal to kindness and adopting trans terminology by demonstrating her willingness to ignore the female community. Here she explains what Cisgender means, as if it’s an unproblematic definition . In fact many women reject the idea that we identify with our “Gender” which we see as a collection of , culturally variable, sex stereotypes. We don’t , necessarily, identify with our Gender. We simply are our Sex. My response to this is simply ⇓

Celebrating Gender Non-Conformity?

Another worrying aspect of this piece is the idea that playing around with your “Gender” is a harmless part of adolescent development. It is true that teenagers go through a period of personality formation; which can include conformity to, or rejection of, expectations for their sex. It is normal to be experimenting with how to navigate this the bridge to adulthood. However it is only a recent phenomenon that this has involved considering, or, undertaking, medical pathways. That concretises adolescent playfulness in unprecedented ways.

Mr Lewzer explains how mum was persuaded things would be OK by showing her positive stories of Transitioners. “They looked good, they are happy and healthy and have relationships”. Yes! Mr Lewzer. This is the age of social media when people carefully curate their content to craft a public persona. Moreover the next statement is striking for what it leaves out. Puberty Blockers have been given to children as young as 10, in the U.K. They invariably progress to cross sex hormones. They are not a reversible intervention. Confirmation from a Tavistock clinic . Britain’s main Gender Identity Clinic is covered here: TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)

Before I leave this post I want to refer to Fox Fisher’s statement about their own bodily distress. Fox tells us they felt a lot of shame about how they felt. “Throughout my teenage years I had not respect for myself, my body, or anything like that. I’d hate for any young person to have to go through that”. There’s a glaring contradiction at the heart of this ideology. It is built on bodily rejection, but dressed up as a person liberation and a route to become your authentic self.

The other elephant in the room is that Lesbians and Gay males are no stranger to performing “Gender” in ways that confound societal expectations. Internalised homophobia can easily manifest itself as shame and bodily hatred. I have written on this topic many times. The Woke Gay Conversion Therapy?

I want to leave you with Fox Fisher’s statement at a Mermaids summer camp. Youtube original removed but here is archived content. Fox Fisher (Worth watching the whole thing which defends 3 year olds knowing they have a Gender Identity that doesn’t match their sex and a court case in which child was removed from the Mother who was deemed to be, inappropriately, fostering a Social Transition)

I cannot imagine any other activist being allowed to express this sentiment 👇and remain associated with a charity which proclaims itself as an ally of the LGBTQ+

That Equaliteach Project

This project came to my attention when they were asked to remove the Government Equality Office (GEO) endorsement from their project report. The first version, below, clearly included the GEO logo.

Online Link to the project report (now deleted) was here

Document uploaded here. FREE-TO-BE-rev5

In fact the GEO funded this project to work with 27 primary schools. At a superficial level the project aims may seem laudable, a resource to tackle bullying in Primary Schools. However an examination of the materials in this pack reveal the underlying relationship to Queer Theory and the political project of disrupting social norms. Some social norms, such as homophobia, needed (still need) to be challenged. Other social norms exist for a reason, for example, to stigmatise the dangerous sexualisation of children. This entire document is a clear example of the political project of Queering the classroom. You can read and article on this here

My first red flag was a dangerous reliance on Stonewall reports.

The rise of hate crime on the basis of homophobia is disturbing. Especially since this is the least covered of the letters by Stonewall. However Stonewall extrapolates from the data to show an alarming % of hate crime, 53% in the 18-24 age bracket. However a hate crime is recorded based on the self-perception of the reporting individual and we know some of these are simple “mis-gendering”. Another puzzling claim is that this project aimed to dismantle gender stereotypes. This is the most disingenuous of claims since we are teaching children, who don’t perform sex stereotypes “correctly”, that they may be #BornInTheWrongBody.

My next red flag was a reference to this person Dr Ronz. The good doctor describes zimself as a “queer, black, androgynous, intersectional feminist”. Of course zie does. After making a good point about lack of visibility; which does impact Lesbians, in particular, she then colludes with the literal erasing of female, often Lesbian, bodies. A young woman describes difficulty walking, struggling to breathe, a hunched back and ribs popping out, all caused by breast binding. This young woman is manifesting an obvious bodily hatred. Dr Ronz fails to interrogate any underlying, psychological, issues, instead she merely advises her to wear a larger binder!

For further reading you can check out this excellent article on the different attitudes to breast ironing (bad) and Breast binding (progressive) in this article. here. What next corsets?

At last more organisations have realised they cannot get away with lying about the nine, legally protected characteristics. This is, at least, an accurate list. 👇. Brief sigh of relief but read on….they are still going to do it, just in a bit more of a sneaky way.

Later on we see the sleight of hand. They emphasise that the correct legal terms should be used except its OK to use “gender” instead of Sex & Gender Reassignment. The very same two protected characteristics now under attack can be replaced with the Stonewall preferred term. Coincidence? I think not.

Don’t take us for fools Stonewall. We see exactly what you are doing even if you have successfully hoodwinked the GEO. This is straight up Stonewall Law. Here’s Stonewall on The Equality Act. 👇

To ram home the point it quotes some of the schools involved who have proceeded to introduce mixed-sex toilets. No doubt after being introduced to this US Transgender Rights Activist who they quote in the document. 👇 Their claim to fame is destroying access to single sex toilets/changing rooms in their home state. There is quite a lot about making sure toilets are “gender neutral” in the pack as teachers fall over themselves to queer the toilet facilities.

Policing Language

There follows a long list of terminology for our primary school children, and likely the teachers, to learn. Why do primary age children need to know about “cisnormativity”, “heteronormative“, “pansexual” and “queer” . Kids are taught about “heterosexism” which is defined as a “belief that heterosexuality is normal and the norm”. Again this is straight out of Queer Theory. A reference to disrupting social norms which exposes the social engineering inherent in “free to be “. A long list of terminology but it only includes the word for the majority sexual orientation in the description for “heterosexism”. These Trans Ally activists seem to have studied Module 101 of how to provoke a backlash, to hard won rights for the LGB and even, ironically, the T.

A dissertation on pronouns follows. Why are we telling primary school children that an incorrect use of pronouns may constitute harassment?

Actually lying about the Law in a project sponsored by the Government! The Equality Act says no such thing! Wrong pronouns do not contravene the Equality Act!

These are primary age kids and, just in case we have all forgotten, we don’t use pronouns to anyone’s face! They are used to refer to people when they are not there!

Welcome to Dystopia. 👇

Gender Identity Ideology.

Naturally the document is saturated with teaching about Gender Identity. The pack quotes research showing that children from age three “can be aware of and talk abut their gender identity”. Children, as young as three, can show awareness of the expectations for their sex and conform to behaviours based on Gender stereotypes. This does not mean they have an innate “gender identity”. It just means boys and girls are socialised to conform from a very young age. Primary school children can indeed be aware of their sexual orientation but it is over-reach to claim that both sexual orientation and Gender Identity are innate. There is much evidence for the former but not the latter. This is not education its indoctrination.

This curriculum seems designed to inculcate a bodily dissociative disorder. The below quote is to remind us of the odious Section 28 legislation, which forbade references to homosexuality. However, Gender identity Ideology is actually the Woke Section 28. We are disproportionately sweeping up our gay youth in the Transgender phenomenon because, guess what, Butch Lesbians and Femme Gay males are a thing. We used to bully femme boys by them by calling them cissy/girl and now we are telling them they are literally girls! So, yes, we are promoting being transgender.

The document also admits that staff, who were worried about reactions from parents, initially, proceeded to teach this ideology in secret. As more parents became aware of this it generated a backlash. Recognising the days of stealth indoctrination have passed, our woke overlords resort to lying about the law and emotional blackmail. Teaching about Gender Identity is not mandated by law. Parents are objecting! And NO it is not a moral and legal duty. 👇

The document addresses questions of religious belief in the context of sexual orientation and then proceeds to answer the question encompassing the LGB & the T. This is a standard tactic. Many opponents of Transgender Identity Ideology are themselves homosexual. This is because there is a conflict between having a SEXual orientation, and demands that you include anyone with the same Gender in your dating pool, regardless of their biology. Activists know that people are generally shamed by being called homophobic so they exploit this fear to push transgender ideology.

Beware!

Next up is a scurrilous attack on organisations which question the new hegemony of “Born In The Wrong Body”, or raise issues of concerns about the impact on Women’s Rights. Worth reproducing this in its entirety. Note that once again Stonewall are quoted, approvingly, as are Mermaids. (The latter is a prominent, UK based, charity, which promotes medicalising “transgender kids” . The BBC has recently removed Mermaids from the list of charities they refer to as sources of advice). This document quotes them as a reputable group.

The authors are keen to make sure that parents and schools reject these organisations and do not, on any account, read what they have to say. They then detail tactics for making sure the entire school buys into the ideology. Get the Governors on board, get parents in for friendly coffee mornings…..basically “groom” them. The document also wrongly tells parents they can’t reject LGBT education. Not true. Sex Educations is expected to be mandatory from September 2020. It is not yet. There is no obligation to teach Gender Identity in schools but note that this document makes it clear it is to be embedded across the curriculum.👇

However if the Government reverse the mandatory sex education the document outlines how to make sure there will be no escape. There are pages and pages of all aspects of the curriculum and how to “Queer” it. There are examples of Home/School contracts so that parents know what is expected of them and their child. There are books like this by Jazz Jennings, the poster child for Gender Dysphoria. 👇 The little boy who had his puberty blocked and sadly, at age 16, did not know what an orgasm felt like. Nice accessible, heart-warming stories. Nothing about puberty blocking causing a penis so small there was not enough material to fashion a neo-vagina and Jazz Jennings multiple, and continuing, corrective surgeries.

Another part of the document includes retrospectively transitioning women, who masqueraded as men to access male professions, such as Dr James Barry. Or even claiming that Plato supported the LGBT+ which is ahistorical nonsense.

They do manage to dredge up an actual transsexual to offer up as a role model for children. Robert (a) Cowell was a late transitioning WW2 Fighter pilot, with a less than savoury tale.

Woke Stasi?

There is a reason why this term exists. Here teachers, it is suggested, observe pupils and keep a diary of their behaviour. Checking for implied homophobia or, heaven forfend, a style of play that assumes heteronormativity!

Parents

I have written about the way parents are treated in these guidance packs. Suffice to say that this one also advocates hiding information from parents. Affirming children at school and concealing this information from parents, This despite also claiming our children are at a heightened risk of suicide. Whilst repeating the mantra: This is not a safeguarding issue?

I will restrict myself to this one quote.

More on parents and transgender guidance is available here Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

Queering the curriculum. Sexing it up?

The references and signposting at the end tells its own tale. Stonewall, Stonewall, Stonewall. Also Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids! Not to forget the Proud Trust, proud purveyors of the Dice Game as covered by this article. here.

The forces pushing this ideology have finally come out of the shadows, they have spread their tentacles throughout councils, parliament, police forces, the Judiciary, Universities and our schools. No longer acting in stealth more and more “normies” are waking up to its more sinister content.

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. Every amount helps me to sustain my work.

My Substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtis

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

Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

The Law: In Loco Parentis

Parents entrust our kids to the School/Teachers to look after their safety and well-being, in our stead. Forcing our girls to share mixed sex spaces, and hiding information from parents is a grave dereliction of that duty.

Transgender Guidance in Schools.

More and more parents have begun to raise concerns about School guidance, supposedly, developed to accommodate Transgender pupils. Grass roots organisations, such as Safe Schools Alliance, have emerged to challenge these policies. In 2020, transgender guidance has been withdrawn in Kent, Cornwall, Shropshire, Barnsley, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire. There are challenges underway in three further schools, of which I am aware. Thus far all the guidance has been withdrawn rather than face a legal challenge.

The Oxfordshire case is illustrative of a problematic attitude to the protected characteristic of sex. A 13 year old girl challenged Oxfordshire County Council via a Judicial Review. Her case aimed to gain recognition of the conflict between the protected characteristics of Sex & Gender Reassignment. The guidance from the Department of Education argues that the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment covers pupils who identify as Transgender. Link to government guidance is here

Here is the relevant excerpt and look who is advising them! GIRES!

This is despite the fact under 18’s cannot apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate or, legally, obtain Sexual Reassignment Surgery, in the UK. The Transgender pupils are therefore anatomically indistinguishable from the rest of their natal sex.

Rather than face a judicial review the council withdrew the policy. They are clearly hoping to hide behind the skirts/trousers of the EHRC. Oxfordshire issued a statement which contained no apology, to the female pupil. Instead the Council ends with a statement about the safeguarding of its trans-identifying pupils. Nothing about a duty to safeguard, potentially vulnerable, natal girls.

In this post I want to specifically focus on the way parents are regarded in these transgender toolkits. Both the parents of children who manifest as Gender Dysphoric and the parents of other pupils. I estimate I have looked at about twenty of these guidance packs. Below are examples of what they have to say about parents.

Most of the guidance refers to the high rate of suicidal ideation, in our trans-identifying children. Yet the policies repeatedly state there is no, inherent, safeguarding risk. If our children reveal a state of gender confusion , to a member of staff, they are reminded that this is confidential information, not to be shared, even with the child’s parents. How can schools claim our children are at a high risk of suicide attempts and, simultaneously, state there are no safeguarding issues. How is it Ok to conceal this information from parents?

Suffolk council divides parents into the good and the bad ones. The good ones “work alongside their child”. Are the bad ones those who think the best outcome is a reconciliation to biological sex and not a lifelong dependence on BigPharma?

Barnsley expresses the hope that parents will be concerned for their child’s welfare but is clearly sceptical. At no point, in any of the policies, is there an understanding that parents, who express caution, are the ones acting in the best interests of our children. Every pack I have examined is suspiciously keen to emphasise actions the child can take independently of their parents.

More sinister is an open statement that a school, in this case a Catholic school, can put in place a transition plan that does not involve the parents! This is my old school and I have young relatives who attend there.

Here is another Catholic school which labels parent’s as prejudiced. It then goes on to make the claim that Parents/Guardians may not be the most appropriate people to guide their child through transitioning! Why is transitioning our children seen as an unmitigated good? A direct attack on parental duty of care and parental rights from the Catholic Church!. I am an atheist but it is quite astonishing to see the undermining of Parental responsibility emanating out of Catholic schools.

Leicestershire Council appear to see themselves as a Tavistock (Gender Identity Services) referral agent: Actually stating here that Teachers & School Nurses, even Youth Workers are able to make referrals!

Where are the parents in the Leicester guidance? Once again the confidentiality of the child is placed in the foreground. What this actually means is that the school has the right to keep secrets from the parents. Even whilst so many of these packs claim our children are at a significant risk of suicide attempts. Still it is not a safeguarding issue?

This next clip is even more disturbing. The Leicester policy sets out a scenario where one of the parents will be actively deceived about what is going on.

Of course we can all think of scenarios where parents are a risk to the safety and well-being of their child. Why are parents, who question the uptick of girls (and boys) with Gender Dysphoria, labelled as problematic. Having navigated this territory, for my male child, I was keen that he was afforded protection but not at the expense of the female pupils. Puberty can be a difficult time for teenage girls and they too deserve dignity, privacy and protection. Like the parent below I was able to navigate a careful path between the two protected groups. Unlike this parent, from the Cornwall guidance, I was not faced with a Social Justice Warrior undermining these careful arrangements.

The Cornwall policy was jointly drafted with a female police officer. I was surprised the statement on the left made it into the document. Apart from a disturbing focus on links to reporting #HateCrime it was not the worst Transgender policy I read. It is, however, a, regrettably, low bar. The document also brands parents as potentially prejudiced and again argues that the child may have a perfect legal right to exclude parents from any role in preserving their healthy bodies.

You can read about the Fraser Guidelines, and Gillick Competence, mentioned above here. Activists argue that transitioning children /teens against their parent’s wishes is in line with the rights of young people. You will start to see more references to these guidelines and Gillick competence. This is intentional and designed to draw a false equivalence to access to contraception. References will also be clothed in Human Rights speak and references to bodily autonomy.

A lot of these guidance packs go to some lengths to make sure schools know they can honour a pupil’s preferred name and pronoun. School systems can be amended to reflect this. There is no need for a legal name change. They also point out that, once a pupil reaches 16 they no longer need parental permission.

Shropshire also favours hiding this information from parents who are not “supportive”. I know, first hand, of parents who only discovered what was going on, with their own child, when a letter was sent home with a new name & pronouns. Do not tell parents can be a very dangerous message. Some parents have children with eating disorders, psychiatric co-morbidities, and other conditions which the school may be unaware about.

The pack which seems to be the template for most of the packs I have seen remains in operation. This is the All Sorts pack, from Brighton and Hove. A pupil’s right to confidentiality is elevated above parental obligations, or the rights of other pupils. Again, because they claim it is not a safeguarding issue it can be kept from their own parents and the parents of other children.

Where a parent raises a concern, about a male-bodied person in girls changing rooms, the pupil/parent’s are admonished for denying the “girlhood” of the other pupil. In this scenario, I as a parent of a trans-identifying male, agree with the female pupil and her parent’s concerns. I would not want my son to be exposed to the hostility, that would likely ensue, from such a stance. At the same time, if the guidance is followed, I would be totally unaware my child had formally claimed trans-status at the school. Who does this protect? Not my son. Not the girls in his school.

Another common feature of the Transgender Guidance is the near ubiquity of signposting to Mermaids Charity. This charity is a keen advocate for keeping secrets from parents. Here is an article on their website. It was modified so children could quickly exit the site and avoid their parents discovering they are seeking counsel on Gender Identity Issues.

The BBC has now amended their guidance to remove signposting to Mermaids and other trans lobby groups. I wonder how long it will take for all School guidance packs to do the same?

My Next blog will explore this document? Based on a project funded by the Government Equalities Office,

Here is what they have to say about parents. This is a lie. The Equality Act does not mandate pronouns.

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Michael has been indomitable in his research into the use of puberty blockers on, ever younger, children. Michael is an Oxford University academic who researches social movements and ordinary people, driven to extraordinary actions. He also researches self-harm as a form of social protest. An interesting background. As you will see from his paper he was told by some woke students to Educate Himself. So he did! Here’s what he uncovered.

As always I am happy for you to bypass my commentary and access the paper directly here. Either way I recommend reading the full paper.

PDF attached in case his work is taken down: Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers

The pressure, on the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDs) to introduce earlier intervention is well documented. For neophytes you can can see the tensions, between Tavistock staff & Lobbyists, in this oral evidence to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. here. With contributions from Susie Green, of Mermaids, and Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock.

The aim of Trans Activists was to get “The Dutch Protocol” embedded in Tavistock practice. This protocol advocated earlier intervention, seen as the key to a more passing Trans Community. Blocking puberty was one way to do this, since it halted the process of masculinisation/feminisation. Publicly Blockers were touted as merely allowing a delay to explore gender identity issues. Based on research this would seem to be pure Public Relations.

The paper goes into some detail on the activists involved in the campaign to institute this changed treatment protocol. One of the familiar names is Stephen Whittle. Whittle is a transman and has played a key role in instituting Transgender Ideology. The best way to pass as a man, it would appear, is to be to behave like the most regressive mysogynist and attack women’s rights. Below are some other key figures together with groups which provided funding. ( I did a double take at the Servite Sisters! My Uncle was a Servite Brother; which is a Catholic order. Sure enough, it’s a Charity run by Catholic Nuns. Why would Catholic nuns fund blocking puberty?)

Norman Spack was involved in the treatment of Susie Green’s child. Susie is now the head of Mermaids, the leading UK charity advocating for medicalising children. Parents with children, who have been through this process, are evangelical in their zeal to extend this to other children. I suspect the motivation is to reassure themselves they did the right thing. The over-investment of older Trans activists, for early transition, looks like retrospective wish fulfilment.

As stated above the argument for puberty blockers had mainly been promulgated as a “pause” providing a, temporary, halt to the development of sexual characteristics. So what happened in the Dutch study? We know that the Tavistock were aware of this study but they didn’t include this fact in their bid for funding and ethical approval. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment (de Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, et al., 2010) Source.

Biggs paper highlights the discrepancies in the statements from GIDS clinicians on Puberty Blockers as a pause. He even highlights near contemporaneous, and contradictory, statements on the topic. See Polly Carmichael, from the Children’s BBC programme, I am Leo, juxtaposed with a statement she gave to the Guardian at around the same time. “We just don’t have the evidence…”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ultimately Polly Carmichael got her wish. The Gender Identity Development Service eventually received ethical approval to administer Puberty Blockers to children. A first attempt was rejected but, undeterred, the application was made again. This time the Tavistock chose to submit the application to a different ethical approval body. It was then approved. The initial study was based on participants from 12 years old. However the evidence suggests the actual age of commencement can be as young as 10. [See Michael’s paper for how he deduced this. Also Dr Aiden Kelly admitting this in my earlier piece TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)]

The paper illustrates how Tavistock accounts of the actual number of subjects involved have varied. The figure of 44 does not remain constant . This matters because one of the failings in much of the research, in this field, is a failure to follow up patients long term. Biggs traces the various numbers used in the public reporting on the study. Damningly, despite being the custodian of the research project, the Tavistock does not appear to be keeping adequate records on the experimental subjects or taking the opportunity to rectify the dearth of long term follow-up studies. A missed opportunity or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation? Dr Carmichael admits that they lose contact with subjects once referred, at age 18 to the adult services. She also admits that they have not tracked those given hormone blockers in a single database! Thus the medium and long term consequences are not being tracked. Despite this look at the growth in numbers being given this treatment and the reduction in the age at commencement. Moreover changes to names and NHS numbers also make it difficult to track those on the receiving end of this experiment. ⇓⇓⇓. All set out in the clips below.

Also note that almost all cases led to cross-sex hormones. Just as in the Dutch Study. Therefore this was not a pause and, 9 years on, the Clinicians involved must know this. Interestingly only in May 2020 did the NHS change its own guidance to stop referring to Puberty Blockers as “fully reversible”.

Biggs has some significant criticisms of the project. Only one of which is the failure to meet any reasonable threshold for informed consent by not revealing the seemingly, inevitable progression to Cross Sex hormones. He also highlights the risks of the use of the drub triptorelin, whose negative outcomes have either been ignored or supressed.

There is more information, in the public domain, about the treatment of dangerous sex offenders, than there is of children put on the same drug. Let that sink in.

Below are a couple of quotes. You can read the full study here Triptorelin.

You can read a detailed list here of : Side Effects

More details of the impact on male children include a stunting of genitalia and negative impact on sexual function. Given that any surgeries to create a “neo-vagina” rely on sufficient penile tissue, for the most common techniques, this is another serious concern.

Other damning evidence suggests a negative impact on fertility and even sexual function.

Even from the limited evidence that GIDS has shared, mainly in Abstract Form from presentations at conferences, Biggs argues that negative outcomes have been omitted or downplayed. Some of these relate to bone density, which should be increasing during puberty. Others relate to reported psycho-social functioning and even suicidal thoughts.

In the light of the concerns raised by the scant evidence in the public domain why has their been no detailed report over 9 years since the project commenced? Biggs raises some serious questions about how a “research project” , instituted in 2011, has been allowed to progress to 2020 without publishing a full evaluation.

Increasing media coverage and the beginnings of political scrutiny may finally be about to shine a spotlight on this experimental treatment. Currently there is an ex-patient, Keira Bell, in the process of taking the Tavistock to Judicial Review over the medical intervention she received. The Safeguarding Lead is to take the Tavistock to court after being informed that safeguarding information was being deliberately withheld from her. Another former member of staff , Susan Evans, commenced legal action over the treatment of children. The Cass Review will look at Puberty Blockers on behalf of NICE. Liz Truss has signalled a change of direction over the treatment of under 18’s.

More politicians are also waking up to this issue.

An Ex- Labour peer, and Doctor of Medicine, Lord Moonie, has been raising issues on the medicalisation of kids and the impact on women’s spaces for well over a year. (Banned from twitter & resigned from Labour over this issue.) Latterly a Conservative MP , Jackie Doyle-Price has begun to speak up. Baroness Nicholson another Conservative Peer has been a tour de force in raising issues about the creeping influence of Gender Identity Ideology. Another Medically trained peer, Lord Lucas raised a question in the House of Lords in May 2019.

At the time of that question we were told the data would be available in the next 12 months. We have heard that before. However Lord Lucas is on the case and assured me he intends to follow this up.

Michael acknowledges the support he had in putting this document together which I include here:

I will leave you with the original patient who triggered the establishment of The Dutch Protocol in the early 1990’s.

Patient B has been followed all the way up to age 35. One would assume that the outcome would have been positive and indeed patient B is highlighted as a success. Indeed they say they do not regret their transition. This does not look like a good outcome to me and I fear we will have many more before someone, finally, halts this experiment. Allow me to also make the observation that if were talking about a biological male there is no way an absence of a healthy sex life would be regarded as positive.

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

This is based on this youtube presentation by a member of staff at Tavistock in March 2018. You can watch this: here.

Here’s a transcript of the talk TAvistock part 3

I have covered the physical interventions we are visiting on children/youth, who present with Gender Dysphoria, here TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)

I now want to examine what this talk tells us about how we diagnose these children and include a few quotes that didn’t make into part A. .

We are basing this diagnosis on the belief that, somehow, Gender Identity exists independently of biology and is sometimes in conflict with our biological sex.

⇐This slide shows that Dr Kelly recognises biological sex, sexual orientation and sexual identity exist. He also identifies, separately, Gender Roles, Gender Expression and Gender Identity.

Biological Sex is the easy one. Despite efforts to destabilise the definition of sex we are a sexually dimorphic species. Differences/Disorders of Sexual development (also referred to as intersex) don’t disrupt the “binary” of sex. Here are two people qualified to comment on the issue of sexual dimorphism. Claire’s comment, below, is a good one to keep handy as her article, published in the journal Nature, is often wheeled out to claim the opposite of what she meant. It is actually a fascinating Article

Dr Kelly defines our Biological sex as our anatomy and says it is an important part of our sexuality and sexual identity. I am not sure how sexual attraction is only partially reliant on biology, except that this matters in Transgender Ideology. Additionally, what does “sexual identity” mean here? It maybe to accommodate people who identify as the opposite sex (not just gender). Alternatively it is, perhaps, to include people who identify as a particular sexual orientation regardless of their sexed body. That is to be inclusive of self-described “male lesbians”, or female’s who identify as “gay men”.

Gender Identity is here described as a “personal and individual thing” which is not necessarily fixed. Yet another reason why it is not a good idea to base legal concepts on something undefinable and shifting. If Gender Identity relies on a personal, subjective feeling how is it sensible to codify it into Law?

Gender Expression. This seems to mean how you “perform” your gender and how you signal which gender you identify with/as.

Here Dr Kelly, an obvious biological male, talks about his identity as a man. We learn how this might be signalled by the way he dresses, manners, his hands and even the way he crosses his legs. This is all complicated by the notion of metrosexual males who may even cross their legs in a feminine way but still identify as male. Confused? Don’t worry. It is, apparently, complicated and kind of hard to think about. God help those of us with #LadyBrains.

Then there are Gender Roles.

Here he recognises these rely on gender stereotypes. Am I a woman because I pick up the dustpan and brush? Don’t be silly. That’s just a gender stereotype. We want to deconstruct those don’t we? And here we come to a startling admission. “The last thing we want to do is to have a young person changing their body to fit in with… societal rules”. Dr Kelly would love to take Gender out of this issue altogether. But, guess what, we have to deal with reality. I assume he means gender stereotypes are deeply entrenched and changing society is too hard. So what does he propose? We need to “carve out a space” for someone to express their gender, in ways that society will accept. Are we really carving up the bodies of young people because that is easier than transgressing expected norms of behaviour for fe/males? I am old enough to remember when Gender Non-Conforming behaviour was widespread. What happened? I give you Annie Lennox and Boy George. I could supply loads more examples.

Next we are introduced to the Gender Unicorn. (See Header). A slide that Dr Kelly uses to introduce concepts central to his work. Sex is, unsurprisingly, described as “assigned at birth”. People with DSDs are othered as a third sex. Sexual orientation is undermined by the inclusion of romantic/emotional attraction. We are using this tool in primary schools! So, is it entirely unsurprising we are seeing rising rates of Gender Dysphoria in girls, and boys? Who amongst us performs our sex stereotypical expectations 100% accurately?

It gets even more confusing when we examine how young children think about gender. We are provided with this slide which shows how children are socialised into expectations of what makes a boy or girl.

This kind of thinking, in a two year old, is quite cute. It is less so when espoused by our political, media and medical elite. I like my politicians to engage with issues as adults not toddlers.

There is not much to disagree with in the next slide except to wish the Dr would join the dots. Emerging sexuality and associated feelings of shame. (Surely worse for those who realise they are same sex attracted in a heteronormative culture). Anyone paying attention would see that the rigidity of the “gender binary” and the impact of parental or societal expectations has significantly worsened in the last twenty years.

Is the new rigidity of Gender Stereotypes a new Backlash against Women’s rights? As women encroach on male professions is this a new way to put women back in their box? Is the Public Femininity display a way to dispel the ball-breaking bitch trope? Are we displaying hyper femininity to signal we are no threat to men? This could be labelled compliance, or subversion, either way omething seems to be going on.

Moving on to the understanding of gender in 8 year olds. Dr Kelly makes an astute observation about the meaning of gender for young children compared to 38 year olds. Note that we are following one set of diagnostic criteria for both groups. Children pick up social cues which reflect the society in which they live. Adults, mainly males, also absorb expectations from adult depictions of female roles. Some of this in contexts (porn) that, you would hope, your eight year old has not encountered. See this interview with Andrea Chu who is remarkably honest about their pathway. You can read up on Chu’s thoughts on the role of sissy porn and the concept of the female as passive: here

Our kids are navigating such difficult territory. I was one of 8 children. Six of us girls. All the horrific statistics about sexual violence against women and children were played out on our bodies. I was a dungaree wearing, tree- climbing, jumper off buildings. We ran free and I was not unusual. Sure we had pretty dresses, for specific occasions, but overwhelmingly we lived in “playing out clothes”. These were the norm and we would nowadays, describe them as gender neutral. I was brought up in a pretty traditional household. Working class father. Manual occupation. Definitely seen as the breadwinner. Even in that context it was absolutely the norm for we girls to do this. Nowadays this would put us at risk of referral to the Gender Identity Industrial Complex!

Fast forward to puberty. As Dr Kelly recognises this is a hugely challenging time for young people. It’s a turbulent time for even the most well adjusted teen.

What happens if you throw in some complicated family dynamics? Below Dr Kelly outlines some scenarios. There are multiple everyday reasons why girls struggle during puberty. Growing up in a society with record violence against women, endemic woman hating porn, hyper-sexualised expectations for young women. No wonder girls are identifying out of their sex. For young boys, who don’t want to be associated with toxic masculine socialisation, who are gay and on the “femme” side the flip side of this equation comes into play. Throw in some domestic turbulence and you get some extreme rejections of what it means to be female /male in this society.

And lets not forget homophobia. Some parents would prefer a faux-straight child to a male child who they might think the behaviour, described below, signals their son may be a proto-gay male.

Dr Kelly goes on to talk about how people can hold toxic views about gender. People can also have quite toxic views rooted in homophobia.👇

I find myself bewildered that the Gender Identity Specialists didn’t anticipate this. The law of unintended consequences. Spend all your time banging on about undermining heteronormative culture and guess what? You did a great job of establishing a new, pernicious, way of establishing it. All your campaigning around “disrupting binary thinking about gender” and what did it achieve? We have actually established a way to make sex stereotypes “flesh” ; by carving up the bodies of boys and girls who don’t conform.

I wonder how many people, who have dedicated their lives to the furthering of this social revolution, have dark nights of the soul? They should.

Survey of Referrals to a Gender Identity Clinic.

This paper surveys 5 years of referrals to an Oxfordshire Gender Identity Service, up to 2009. Its well worth looking at this paper because it sheds light on the typology of referrals. It also raises the issues of informed consent, co-morbidities, sexual motivation and, crucially, highlights the huge change in the sex of referrals.

See below for a brief summary of the methodology:

We have seen a dramatic shift from mainly male, in this paper, to overwhelmingly female in the decade since. Turns out biological sex is a factor. Current youth referrals are now 75% female. This is a striking change as highlighted by ex staff from the UK’s main Gender Identity Service (The Tavistock). Over 40 staff have left over a three year period, some after expressing concerned about the response to this changing demographic. (Clips from an article in the Times of London. Full Article here. (Paywall) Feels Like Gay Conversion ⇓

As always, feel free to skip my commentary and read the entire paper yourself. You can find it here

This paper pre-dated the changes to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual; which no longer refers to Gender Dysphoria as a “disorder”. Activists fought long and hard to change the way this condition was described, to remove any reference to “disorder. The modern narrative is that our children are simply “assigned” the wrong sex at birth. To develop a sense of Gender, at odds with your sex, is now presented as a normal/natural variation and hence de-pathologized. Well worth reading Dr Ann Lawrence (Transsexual) on the politics behind this change. (Will add link when Dr Lawrence’s website is back after maintenance)

The above paragraph emphasises the rarity of this condition and the high incidence of co-morbidities in the community; i.e. the existence of other mental health issues in the Trans community. Axis 1 disorders are at the most acute level and include schizophrenia and depression. The paper is authored by psychiatrists who were specifically focussed on concurrent and historic, diagnoses of mental health issues.

Other notable features were the low rate of funding approvals for surgery, the rise in self-medicalisation, the prevalence of mental health issues and a disturbing finding of clients who admitted to paedophilia.

As with many other papers the rates of referrals, from those with a diagnosed autistic spectrum disorder, is also noticeable. The authors note that, in the main, their sample did not differ significantly from the findings of other research. They do note, however, the mental health issues were slightly lower than in other findings. The youth of the female subjects is noted.

Below is a breakdown of how many of the subjects were already accessing hormones obtained over the internet, without any medical oversight. Over 50% had either a current or pass mental illness. Depression was the most common diagnosis.

This study is to look specifically at psychiatric diagnoses so it is striking that none had a formal diagnostic interview. The authors conclude that comorbidity is, therefore, likely to be underreported. It would be interesting to see if the location in a student population influenced the rate of young females presenting at the service. ( I do wonder if there will, eventually, be a retrospective review that draws comparisons to females who succumbed to anorexia. My own personal experience was that it impacted, highly motivated/academic females at a disproportionate rate)

Reading the quote below it is refreshing to see reference to issues of capacity to consent in relation to those on the autistic-spectrum. For those of you on twitter it is instructive search “top surgery” and see how many openly proclaim “autistic” in their personal biography. I also signpost you to the #WeAreNotConfused hashtag. This was started to refute any notion that the high prevalence of Autistic youth, with Gender Dysphoria, was an issue of concern. A response which was a reaction to the open letter by JK Rowling which you can read here.

Expressing concern about the high number of autistic females suffering from Gender Dysphoria is not deemed an acceptable opinion within the field of Gender Identity Specialists.

The reference to paedophilia in this paper also triggers push back on social media. It would be interesting to know exactly how this information came into the possession of the clinicians undertaking the assessment. It would seem that this must have relied on a personal disclosure based on the wording below:

9AEF136F-C3EB-4448-9AA1-EB75A145F1A3 — Safeguarding

This is an unmentionable subject on twitter as it has echoes of the association of paedophilia with gay males. Gay activists were quite right to push against such an insidious narrative. At the same time Safeguarding101 is DO NOT create a priest class, who are beyond reproach. It is not that priests became paedophiles. Its that paedophiles became priests. Remember this when people push aside safeguarding concerns because transphobic.

To finish I am going to include this clip again. Pay attention. Reasons for non-referral were that the person was deemed not to be ready, or homosexual or having an autistic-spectrum disorder.

Now watch last night’s Newsnight segment here: Tavistock Ask yourself what has happened to make clinicians throw caution to the winds in the last 10 years?

Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

This article shows how a good therapist can identify underlying issues and attempt to resolve Gender Dysphoria without medicalised responses to bodily discomfort. The therapist is fluent in Gender Identity speak but does have the courage to honestly interrogate what “Gender” means to the clients they see. It is important to note that any therapist may, or perhaps will, feel compelled to speak in approved language to get published. Additionally our young people have imbibed the new lexicon so the therapist may need to speak in the approved language, to establish a dialogue with Gender Dysphoric youth.

The article: Psychoanalyst on Transitory Trans Identity Author Alessandra Lemmas

Psychoanalysis pays attention to unconscious motivations in the formation of “identity”. This is in marked contrast to Gender Identity proponents of a medicalised response. Lemmas talks of the need for “a posture of implicit scepticism” when dealing with claimed identities. This is in marked contrast to Gender Identity medical practitioners who prioritise a subjective sense of self and demand only “belief”. This is an excerpt from a response to an article in the British Medical Journal about how to treat Gender Dysphoria. The response is from Dr Helen Webberly, currently suspended from the General Medical Council, who is not alone in her stance: Helen Webberly .

The belief that people can, literally, be born in the wrong body underpins the lack of a therapeutic approach to young people presenting with Gender Identity Issues. Merely to suggest that this may be an incorrect, self-diagnosis, generates outrage that we are denying the “lived experience” of the transgender community. Yet we know, as Lemmas, and many others, point out most desist, reconcile to biological sex and many are simply gay. 👇

The author subscribes/pays lip service to the idea that sex is assigned at birth, rather than merely observed, as it is in 99% + cases. She subshumes both Lesbians and Gay men underneath the “transgender” umbrella. The statistics on post-operative satisfaction accept the narrative from within the Gender Identity community with no acknowledgment of the methodological flaws with the phenomenon of “loss to follow up”. {This is where a patient loses contact with the Gender Identity Service they are using. Detransitioners say they don’t return to the services which, they feel, actively harmed them, so this cohort disappear from the “follow up”}

The three case studies, in this article, cover many of the issues raised by parents dealing with our gender Dysphoric offspring. All claimed a transgender identity with no prior history sound puberty. We are told about the huge spike in referrals to the UK’s main Gender Identity Clinics and a wider social context emphasising choice and very much of a piece with the atomising of the individual in neoliberal, capitalist, societies.

The first case is illustrative of the complicity of transgender identity. More on “Anita” below. 👇. As you can see Anita claims multiple identities encompassing male, gay & female as well as “drag queen”. Already taking cross sex hormones but with no intention to progress to more surgical changes.

The dialogue seems to settle on the idea that gender identity can be fluid and an exploratory phase. Nevertheless Anita is already medicalising, We leave this case here, though I will just add that I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of what “living as a woman” means. It seems to depend on circular reasoning /a retreat to sex stereotypes.

Janes case is more complex and, arguably, requires a more robust interrogation since Jane seems to fully intend a full transition to “live as a man”. The sessions are challenging and, on more than one occasion, the analyst reports the anger triggered by the exploration of underlying issues. What emerges is a young girl whose parents have traditional gender roles in the household. Janes perception is that her mother is a “hostess” with little power, standing in the household. On being pressed much of Janes “Identity” seems built about rejecting all the signs associated with being a “girl” such as make-up and long hair. Here are some of Jane’s thoughts on what being a girl means to her:

Tellingly., Jane reveals that they did not feel they measured up to the expected level of attractiveness as a girl. Even more revealing is an expression of same sex attraction. Not as a lesbian but as a male attracted to females. Another common theme in detransitioners is the yearning for passing privilege as a male and how this, in retrospect, seemed to become more unattainable as they sought to identify as male.

Jane is also adopted and vehemently rejects any idea this relates to their gender identity issues, However it later emerges that the birth mother was from a culture which prized male children, in preference to girls. This prompts some self reflection and the realisation / admission that maybe this was bound up with the idea that her mother may have kept a male child.

Janes situation resolved itself without medical intervention. She is in a same sex relationship and has found a way to identify as a strong woman in her on line world after previously observing that she felt “insubstantial” and, significantly, failed to garner the same respect when she was coded female.

The third case study is Alex, who is a female who identified as male at 16. Alex was not interested in being dissuaded from hormones and surgery, as is common with our Gender Dysphoric youth. Alex’s parents affirmed the new identity and accepted their daughter as a son. Alex, however,still wished to access therapy, but still underwent a double mastectomy at age 19. Post surgery Alex was, initially “happy” but then became depressed and suicidal and revisited the sexual abuse that they had endured at age 10, and realised the link between the abuse and the desire to remove their breasts . Tellingly, the parents were not aware of the sexual abuse and it did made me reflect on their role as affirming parents and, if they had been aware of this history, would it have made them exercise more caution? I do NOT say this to judge those parents. Any one of us could have genuinely advocated for this stance in the belief, pushed relentlessly by our media and advocated by public bodies, that this is the right thing to do.

I am conflicted about the “woke” language. By espousing the idea that someone can born “in the wrong body” {which is the belief system underpinning transgender ideology} the danger is our Gender Confused children are getting mixed messages. On the one hand the implication is that they may be hard-wired with a conflict between sexed bodies and an opposite sex brain. At the same time it is clear that some of these cases are complicated by sexual orientation, history of sexual abuse and family dynamics. There remains no diagnostic test that can separate the influence of “neuroplasticity” from the notion of an opposite sex brain. In an ideal world we would start from the clear premise that there is no solid evidence that there is a biological basis for this incongruence between sexed bodies and a “gender identity”. That does NOT mean that Gender Dysphoria does not exist or that it cannot, in a minority of extreme cases, be extremely debilitating and, for adults, may lead to an inescapable desire for medical intervention.

Irrespective of these misgivings this is a good article and those of us dealing with Gender Dysphoric teens know how hard it is to navigate this terrain. Some solid therapeutic work seems to have built up sufficient trust to garner some solid insights from these young people. Of course I wish that self-awareness pre-dated significant surgery but for parents struggling with this, especially, I do recommend this piece.

Sexual Reassignment Surgery: A prisoner’s appeal

This legal case centres on a prisoner who wished to access, NHS funded, Sexual Reassignment Surgery during a prison sentence. Covered by The Times here: KK appeal for SRS

In anticipation of the general denial on this issue I include, as always, the official, judicial transcript. KK: Legal Challenge for SRS.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this case. Firstly the recurrent appearance of the same clinicians whose advice is sought. There does seem to be quite a small number of specialists in this field. A feature of this case, once again, is the claimant’s complicating history of sexual offences. This is not unusual, in the cases which leave a trail in court paperwork. Another recurrent theme is the vexed notion of what “living as a woman” means. This resists definition and exercises the minds of our specialists, and the judiciary, far too little. Here we are told the claimant is 60 years of age, was sentenced “as a man” and has been given an indefinite sentence for public protection (IPP). We also discover that the bar for obtaining Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS) is lower for a prisoner who will never be released than for those with the possibility of parole. There is no rationale given here for this policy.

The legal claim is made on a number of grounds. One of these is whether there exists a protocol which discriminates against prisoners wishing to access sexual reassignment surgery. Another aspect of the case is a rarely articulated concern about regret, in post-operative transsexuals. Here it is adduced as a factor in the, efusing the prisoner GRS. The existence of post-surgery regret is not denied. Instead, the argument hinges on the lack of peer reviewed research showing prisoners are at a higher risk of regret. The Trust, for its part, denies there is any such protocol.

Below is a reminder of the criteria to access genital surgery. It can be done from age 17, mental health conditions are no bar they must merely be “controlled”, a patient is allowed to progress even if they are “unwilling” to undertake hormone treatment. Furthermore the prospective patient should not be judged on how they perform their gender. God forbid we assign arbitrary expectations to performative gender, it might make us suspect the entire ideology is underpinned by reductive, sexist stereotypes. The absence of any externally verified way of measuring “Living as a Woman” does, however, beg the question how is this being measured? How can you assess if a male person is really of the female gender? What does living in the female gender role mean?

How can you possibly assess whether this identity is being adopted correctly if you don’t have pre-conceived notions of what “living as a woman” entails? Is it possible that this is a tad sexist?

Another revealing admission is that many of those who claim the status of “woman” in fact have no bodily modification at all. So living as a woman does not require anyone to be divested of that very male of appendages. One could be forgiven for assuming the penis part of the male anatomy which would give rise to dysphoric feelings. Yet it seems not to be the case. A large number retain their male anatomy. At the same time we, second class women, the biological kind, are expected to share our intimate spaces with the new, male-bodied, version of womankind. We hear much of the comfort surgery can bring to sufferers of Gender Dsyphoria. Where is the consideration for the discomfort of ,unbepenised, women forced to share our intimate spaces?

Cue cries of “transphobia” for wishing to be free of all genders of penis when women are in intimate spaces.

The next excerpt from the case provides more information on the sexual offences committed by the prisoner. Here we learn that the defendant begain offending in the 1980’s; when he groomed and abused a young girl, at the age of 12 . The defendant was, at that stage, 32 years of age. The girl endured this for four years. He served just one year. He was still sexually offending in 2006.

The claimant is late to a belief they are really a woman. He remained trapped in a man’s body at age 51. The claimant professes, to the therapist below, that his sexual offending may cease if he is allowed to transition. The therapist offers an alternative view. What if his attraction to the child images is related to him having missed out on 51 years of being a girl (WTF!). He may, in fact, be at a higher risk of offending after gender reassignment. He then proceeds to amend his statement with the outrageous implication that he resorted to offending to “vicariously experience womanhood”. Because nothing screams woman louder than sexually offending against a pubescent, female teen and downloading child porn! Types furiously…

Again there is a lot of evidence that males, who retain a sexual interest in females, and wish to transition, also have co-existing paraphilias. But hey, what could possibly go wrong!

Dr Lorimer is well aware that masochistic fantasies are not unusual. A cursory acquaintance with sections of the community reveal a correlation with interests in BDSM. Indeed here is a Masters Thesis about how sado-masochistic, role play helped one transwoman cement their identity. Naturally they played the submissive role. BDSM & Transgender Identity

Cross-dressing usually has an erotic component but the prisoners states this was not the case for them. Well he would wouldn’t he? Fetishising a female identity is pretty much the essence of the movement but I would say that wouldn’t I?

Fetishising sexual roles, with notions of submission and dominance, seems to be a core feature of how many males experience their female role. Acting female in a male prison is vastly different from women’s material reality, as pointed out below:

Here we find that the prisoner remains in a category C Male prison. Since they have been “in role” for 10 years in a male prison it rather begs the question about lack of safety in the male estate. Dr Barrett makes it clear they are not able to make a referral for a Gender Recognition Certificate. As we found out from earlier cases there is no bar to obtaining a GRC, from within prison, even with convictions for sexual offences against women. There are always other clinicians and a wealth of private providers that the prisoner can approach. Good to know. I was worried for a while.

We soon learn that the prisoner has been moved to an open prison. We are not told if this remains in the male estate. The prisoner has, however, been granted accompanied and unaccompanied visits to the local town. This is to gain that all important “real life experience” of living as a woman, whatever that means! This is a prelude to release. Prisoner also has hormone therapy increased. Below is another revealing statement that acknowledges that most denied of phenomena: “detransition”. When word gets out that Dr Lorimer has used this word will he be cancelled?

The prisoners sexual offences are deemed to “complicate” the picture for our clinicians. Further confirmation is provided below. Here we have a prisoner presenting as female, in the male estate, for 10 years! Again Dr Barrett makes it clear the imprisonment of a patient is no bar to obtaining GRS and, additionally confirms female prisoners are being made to share accommodation with pre-op males.

Yep Dr Barrett you bet the experience of living in the female role is artificial. I agree with you but probably for different reasons. Late transitioners, with a history of sexual offences, are a red flag but you can’t say that can you? We must not undermine the notion of a man trapped in a woman’s body. #AcceptionWithoutException. Though Dr Barrett comes pretty close with this gem of a contribution about Women “living in female bodies!” (spoiler there is no other kind ). Yes! We tend not to groom female children and perform oral sex on them.

So without wishing to labour the point the prisoner is denied. No mention is made of the obvious reasons! You know the late -transitioning, sexual offence history and interest in child porn. No. The real issue that seems to justify the refusal is a failure to demonstrate real lived experience, as a woman, because prison is an artificial environment! Whilst a male cos-playing as a woman is not artificial, in any way!

Case Dismissed.

Puberty Blockers. Part One

Puberty Blockers are promoted as an ideal way to allow your child to “pause” puberty whilst undergoing gender identity confusion. This is the consistent stance taken by “experts” in the field. This appears to have been taken on trust by the medical establishment and is now embedded within our own NHS. Here is the GID (Gender Identity Service) statement (accessed November 9th 2019).

Here is Polly Carmichael of the GIDS service. This is a clip from a documentary shown on Childrens BBC. Yep that’s right. CBBC. Which of the parents now dealing with Gender Dysphoric kids realised this was being propagandised to our kids? Not me.

Originally this blog had a link to Becoming Leo but it has now been removed. It was here Becoming Leo: CBBC

Yet when you access the service spec which GIDS work to you actually get this rather contradictory information. Seems that they *know* that far from a “pause” it actually sets these kids on an irreversible path to “gender affirmation surgery”. You can access this document here: Service Specification

So my question is why, if they know 100% go onto a medicalised pathway, are they still saying this allows for a “pause”? It isn’t new information. So what else do we know about puberty blockers? Here is the outcome of an investigation into a GIDS research programme that puts children on puberty blockers as young as age 12. The Health Research Authority conducted an investigation into the research programme after concerns had been raised. The full report can be accessed here:HRA Report on GIDS

For the purposes of this blog the pertinent admission is here

We have moved from “pause” to very careful selection of the group who are “likely” to progress. This sleight of hand diverts scrutiny from the role puberty has, formerly, played in resolving Gender Dysphoria. Historically it was the actual changes that occurred during puberty that resolved the dysphoria and allowed re-identification with biological sex. Stopping puberty means 100% go on lifelong dependence on cross-sex hormones and significant surgery. Something noted by key researchers in this field. Its even worse. Most of these youngsters, if left alone, would grow up to be Gay Males or Lesbians.

Here is a youtube which goes through all the Long Term Studies that look at persistence versus desistance rates. . It looks at the methodology in cluding the problematic aspects. Lack of control groups, changes in diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (now Gender Dysphoria), loss to follow up in the studies and small sample size. Desistance rates

Despite all the caveats to the studies the incontrovertible fact is that the majority desist. IF, crucially, they are left to go through a natural puberty.

This article covers much of the same studies and comes to the same conclusion. Trans Kids.

Pertinent quote

Here is a professor who asks the question we all need to be asking. Watch here: Are we medicalising away the Gay?

I will leave part-one here and follow up with a detailed look at two studies. These raise serious questions on the evidence base on which the treatment protocols are based. A child who has puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones will be sterile. We know, historically, most were same sex oriented and we also know that there is, currently, an over-representation of autistic kids caught up in a trans-identity.

Is this the Woke Gay /Autistic Eugenics?

You can support my work here:

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, the impact on women’s rights and the biggest medical scandal this century

£10.00

Gender Recognition Certificates

As activists in the trans community work to remove the “onerous” burdens placed on the community to legally “transition” I became curious about the legal cases in this area. Far from excessive gatekeeping the act is explicitly designed to be “permissive”. Has this permissiveness gone too far? It seems there is a low bar to be, legally, redefined as a woman. If you are not convinced have a scroll through my blogs. If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine, I would not believe me either! In every piece I link to the legal records. You can bypass my commentary and go straight to the Transcript

In brief no surgery, attempted rape convictions, being incarcerated for paedophilia are no bar to claiming “womanhood”! Remember that when someone tells you they “live as a woman”. Interrogate that phrase. Its ubiquitous and meaningless. Can I, a white woman, say I “live as a black woman”? Nope. So why is one form of appropriation Ok and the other is racist?

Reading through these cases the co-morbidities of mental health conditions is striking, even as they are dismissed as “co-incidental”. This has implications for treatment pathways and women’s safety. The recurrence of the same “experts” also shows how “gender identity specialists” are influencing the judiciary. The case I cover in this blog can be read, in full, here 👉: Ms Jay October 2018

Ms Jay versus the Secretary of State was instigated after three, unsuccessful, applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Presiding was a single judge, Lord Justice Baker. This case, as the Judge points out, was the first under new rules governing appeals against a GRC refusal. Below is some background about the complainant.

The clip below includes details of the short marriages, a self-reported feeling of being in the wrong gender, from puberty, and a secret history of “cross-dressing”. {Neophytes should search “autogynephelia” at this stage}

In addition to marrying three times, and fathering 7 children, the appellant has a criminal history. In 2011 they were sentenced to eight years in prison. The judge makes it clear that the appeal is not concerned with the criminal offences. Also the papers detailing the offence were not included and, moreover, that this was not relevant to the “wider public debate”. For the terminally curious. Here is a brief allusion to the offence so you can judge for yourself whether it is “relevant”

Some of the reasons the panel resisted awarding a GRC were; inconsistencies in the information supplied, the reversion to male names during “transition” and a Gender Identity specialist casting doubt on the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Ms Jay appears to have had more than one name change during the process and questions were raised about multiple addresses. Questions were also asked about misleading information supplied about the marriages and why redacted documents were submitted to the panel. Here we are told the applicant has lived full-time as a woman since December 2008. Yet driving licence and passport were renewed, in the male name, in 2013. This a year after making a statutory declaration, to a judge of their “intention to live full-time as female until death”. (whatever living as a female means). The appellant had a name change in 2013 , whilst imprisoned, a surname change and then another first name change in 2018. I hope someone is keeping track of all those names! I echo the panel statement which questioned whether the applicant had something to hide!

I sympathise with a panel presented with this applicant. A person whose Gender Dysphoria remitted enough to marry three times and father seven children. Someone who manages to suppress their femininity sufficiently to amass explosives with intent to endanger life. ( No! I hear your outrage. You are right. Women can also amass explosives with homicidal intent. Must learn to Lean In….Bad Feminist!) Naturally, because of the name changes, I have found it impossible to trace the background to those offences. I can’t shed any light on the womanly way in which the crime was committed. I am actually not clear whether tracing this history is even possible if a GRC holder does not reveal past identities. It might even be an offence for me to try!

Warning! Tone Switch..

Having justifiable concerns about the impact of these decisions, on women, does not necessitate abandoning my humanity. The clip below paints a sad picture of the claimant. Nobody deserves to be vulnerable to sexual assault and I do wonder whether anyone is joining the dots between maladaptive coping mechanisms and prisoners undergoing transition. However I would also love to hear from the trans-widows in this case. Those women are the really brave and stunning ones in all of these tales. They may tell a very different tale.

The first application to the Gender Recognition panel appears to have commenced from within prison. The medical evidence submitted is from Dr James Barrett, a regular expert witness in these cases. He is generally very sympathetic to Transgender Appellant’s. His statement and comments are worth quoting in full. The history presented by the appellant is disputed and a concern focus on transition may be misdirected. A long history of psychiatric problems is noted. When even Dr Barrett thinks its a bad idea….its probably a bad idea!

The prisoner is released in March 2015 and finds a new doctor. Unfortunately the release didn’t last long and they were recalled to prison in less than 3 months, Here a new doctor appears on the scene. Dr Helen Webberley. Interestingly the panel note that they had not previously heard of Dr Webberley, in this field, which shows how recently they d£cid£d to ~~cash in~~…oops I mean support such a vulnerable community:

The relationship with Webberley doesnt seem to persist and another doctor appears. The next Doctor issues a report which is submitted, in redacted form, the the Gender Recognition Panel. This doctor again refers to Ms Jay’s personality disorder and maladaptive coping mechanisms but does diagnose Gender Dysphoria. The diagnosis leads to the recommended treatment (gender reassignment) to resolve the psychiatric issues. Nobody asks whether craving Gender Reassignment is another maladaptive coping mechanism. That would be transphobic, just in case any of you are thinking that now! Gender Dysphoria has been rebranded as an “identity” not a mental health issue, it’s now a slur to suggest this. As an aside this expert also recommends consideration is given to moving the prisoner to the female prison estate. In March 2016 the application for a GRC was turned down. The doctor disappears from the case.

The prisoner is once again released in May 2016. Within 3 months he has found another doctor who provides this evidence ↓ Pay attention to the dates and the extensive treatment the patient has, we are told, undertaken in three short months. ( As an aside Dr Pasterski appears in other cases I cover & most notably opposed a Local Education Authority when it raised concerns about 3 unrelated “trans kids” in a foster family).

At this point the claimant becomes frustrated with the panel who have requested more clarification. The claim “I have always been female” would seem to write three wives and 7 children out of history! In August 2017 the Gender Recognition Panel again turned down the application. They expressed doubt about the credibility of the supporting evidence and , in particular that of Dr Pasteracki. They cast doubt on evidence supplied by the claimant.

3633A2A3-83DE-4B91-B111-3D288A48F961 — ***Inconsistent, unclear, vague, evasive. Nothing to see here***

Some awareness of the condition of Autogynephilia, in the Transexual Community would help the Judge here. Those who fit the profile for autogynephilia have a condition rooted in shame. Sufferers tend to be steeped in denial. Here is a quote from a Gender Identity Specialist:

1334EE62-7FB8-4A16-98ED-FA1DB0C6154D — The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey.

We have seen this in an earlier case I covered GRC from Prison. In that case a male claimed to be homosexual, his attempted rape was minimised on that basis. Yet, since leaving prison, they now self-identify as a lesbian.

Back to this case. In November 2017 the prisoner was again recalled to prison. The judge noted that the claimant was still in prison at the time of the hearing.

Thereafter yet another doctor enters the fray! As the claimant is detained at her Majesty’s pleasure it is not clear how any assessments were carried out. This one is in Sheffield. Can’t change the opinion so change the Doctor!

Now we get to the aim of the court case. It turns out they there is provision for a GRC to be issued by this one judge who can bypass the Gender Recognition Panel. The advocate for the claimant also shares this interesting nugget about GRC applications. Less than 5% are refused its designed to be “permissive not restrictive”. You have to admire the fancy footwork of the Legal team. Ms McCann that the prisoner met the legal standard and that this Judge had the authority to award the Gender Recognition Certificate himself. Is it possible that some Judges are a tad vain and like to set precedents? Does the advocate absolutely know this fact about male vanity? [Strike that: Snarky opinion! My bad]

Ms McCann reminds of that many of these decisions emanate from the European Court of Human Rights. (If we Brexit do we lose Sexit? Sobering thought for a remainer such as myself!)

The right to self-determination includes “gender identification”. Laywoman opinion: Your right to self-determination is not absolute. If it denies me the personal autonomy to recognise and relate to someone as the sex they are!

To demand that I accede to your self-identity which may contradict my sex recognition skills springs from a totalitarian impulse. Chances are I will see your sex and if you walk behind me, late at night, I will react accordingly.

Furthermore can a person be “master” of his “ethnicity” as per the extract below? If I am objectively black can I identify out of racism? As a woman can I identify out of sexism?

To cut a long story short the Judge was persuaded by these arguments. He recognises that he is sitting alone, without assistance from a medical member of the panel but, in a Brave and Stunning decision, he decides to confer a Gender Recognition Certificate on Ms Jay, assuming that is still her name.

For those of you following this discussion just a reminder not to mention the elephant’s trunk in the room. That would just be rude.

I will leave you with this question. In making these determinations the Judge has to have regard to the individual’s Human Rights but also the wider rights of the Community. Are we well served?

Tag: Transgender

Queering the NSPCC? Part Two: What it means to be Transgender.

ChildLine YouTube Content.

What it means to be Transgender?

Defining the undefinable

Hallelujah!

Terminology. Keep up!

Strategic Deployment of “Transmen”

Celebrating Gender Non-Conformity?

Like this:

That Equaliteach Project

Policing Language

Welcome to Dystopia. 👇

Gender Identity Ideology.

Beware!

Woke Stasi?

Parents

Queering the curriculum. Sexing it up?

Like this:

Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

The Law: In Loco Parentis

Transgender Guidance in Schools.

Like this:

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Like this:

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Like this:

Survey of Referrals to a Gender Identity Clinic.

Like this:

Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

Sexual Reassignment Surgery: A prisoner’s appeal

Like this:

Puberty Blockers. Part One

Is this the Woke Gay /Autistic Eugenics?

Like this:

Gender Recognition Certificates

Warning! Tone Switch..

Like this:

ChildLine YouTube Content.

What it means to be Transgender?

Defining the undefinable

Hallelujah!

Terminology. Keep up!

Strategic Deployment of “Transmen”

Celebrating Gender Non-Conformity?

Share this:

Like this:

Policing Language

Welcome to Dystopia. 👇

Gender Identity Ideology.

Beware!

Woke Stasi?

Parents

Queering the curriculum. Sexing it up?

Share this:

Like this:

The Law: In Loco Parentis

Transgender Guidance in Schools.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Share this:

Like this:

Is this the Woke Gay /Autistic Eugenics?

Share this:

Like this:

Warning! Tone Switch..

Share this:

Like this: