So in yet another example of self-beclownification (one that isn’t Jason Arday, but perhaps more on him & his foolish enablers another time), we have last week’s now infamous and extremely bizarre radio spat between the Belfast Telegraph’s Allison Morris and Helen Joyce, after Morris wrote the following article. In it, she talks about the inexplicable evils of what she calls “the anti trans lobby”, focusing on WRNI, a group with whom she was not familiar but for a cursory glance, yet whom, she’s concluded, with angry certainty, definitely don’t care about “actual dangers” towards women.

Naturally, the very male TRA violence, and constant threats towards exactly such women of punching, rape and death that echo the rhetoric of every other male abuser ever, from woman-hating DV perpetrators to incels to serial killers, threats of punching, raping, stabbing, decapitating, hanging, don’t count at all if it’s got a “trans’ label attached. No, apparently the threats and rhetoric, familiar to anyone who has been paying attention for the last bloody decade, isn’t actually a thing, according to “prize winning journalist” Morris, who finds opposition by women to these men very inexplicable and minor, compared to, you know, REAL male violence.

In fact, she thinks, it’s all just a ploy to align with Trump, Musk and any other right winger you can think of. Regardless of the actual political affiliations or history of women’s rights activism or views of those she’s smearing.

This male violence towards women is “special” male violence, it seems. Or merely a figment of our fevered, supposedly MAGA-loving imaginations.

Well, blow me down. Anyway, if your blood pressure can take the idiocy, you can listen to Morris v Joyce in its original form here:

It obviously helps, one might tell Ms. Morris, if you know what your opponents arguments actually are, but ah, isn’t it loads more fun to make up dark conspiracies instead in the service of goodies versus baddies?

And then to double down on it on social media, after you’ve made a fool of yourself on national radio? To call every woman disagreeing with you to point out that they themselves are actually left-wingers “Trump supporters” and “dregs”? Including Martina Navratilova?

To continue openly lying about your opponents’ political affiliation regardless of all evidence to the contrary, to refuse to listen to anything and accuse instead, just because you think it puts you on the Correct Side of whoever it is who is encouraging you to behave like a bullying schoolgirl pretending she’s hard and besmirching her own reputation by completely failing to do what any good journalist is meant to do? Actually pay attention?

And this is cutting edge progressive journalism and all about women’s rights and safety, is it?

Update: Helen Joyce has had her response article rejected by the Belfast Telegraph. So instead, she has published her response on her Substack which you can read for yourself here:

Helen Joyce

The article BelTel rejected

Left to right: Fiona McAnena of Sex Matters, Sorcha nic Lochlainn of The Countess, Danielle Loughrey of Gaels For Fair Play, Marianne Driessen of Athena Forum and Nora Calder of WRN NI. At the podium is journalist Catherine McGinty, who moderated the event…

Read more

a month ago · 40 likes · 4 comments · Helen Joyce

So, to continue with my own personal rant about it all (as you can tell, I am not in any way a journalist…)

I guess the tough girl act might go down okay in West Belfast playgrounds, but not so much for anyone else listening & reading who’s less invested than Ms. Morris in either bad faith polarisation and tribalisation, or in propping up and handwaving away critiques of this ONE ideology, against all her other supposed principles, for reasons I can’t quite fathom and don’t seem to go beyond lazy guilt by association propagandist tactics, not listening to anything said to you, and then getting bots and trolls to cheer you on.

It doesn’t do much either, for her own arguments, given that her posturing in this case undermined pretty much everything she’s been quite correctly saying about male violence and DV until now. She even points out that other groups of men will pretend to be something they’re not for the purposes of sexual abuse, but apparently cannot join the dots at all, despite all evidence, that this is just another such group. And none of that does her reputation much good in the long run, especially her professional reputation, although I’m sure those who NEED her to push a false narrative right now have been very happy with her output so far, as it serves whatever they needed her to serve.

As we know, this is always the way with this particular “activism”, and we have seen it over and over. So if Morris wants to parrot the “it’s only a tiny issue worried about by a small number of far right bigots” despite all evidence to the contrary, well, it’s not our reputation she’s destroying in the long run; it’s her own.

Just like the raging wildfires we’ve been seeing in the UK and Europe, the anti-science, anti-reality belief system many of us refer to as “Gender Ideology” (and yes, it IS an ideology, involving an entire belief framework, complete with its own sacred tenets, heresies and language, when there are other, better belief systems which already support freedom from sex stereotypes) seems to me to be unique in how it somehow manages to engulf and burn to the ground pretty much EVERYTHING that was once supposedly core that belonged to those it touches.

Things that most “good” and “progressive” people in society used to think were important. Such as principles and integrity. Also truth. Remember those?

It will never stop astounding me just what gullible, frothing, dim idiots supposedly intelligent people are prepared to turn themselves into, what incredible feats of twisted narrative they are willing to perform, the principles they’re prepared to blow up, JUST in the service of this one bullshit ideology.

It destroys ALL integrity. People, companies, organisations, politicians make fools of themselves constantly over it. I’ve never seen anything so toxic, so utterly hellbent on destruction of the core of every single thing and person it touches, and I’ve lived in a LOT of countries, some of which are utterly corrupt and have long histories of thought policing and dictatorship. It’s utterly parasitic

For example, for something which opponents tell us is “minor”, they seem a) all remarkably angry about it (see Owen Jones, Jolyon Maugham, “Silly” Billy Bragg and others) and b) remarkably focused on putting it front and centre at all costs, way above the rights of any other humans. They also seem c) remarkably invested in destroying any principles of fairness, ethics and truth they THEMSELVES are supposed to hold. Not to mention, in the case of political parties and organisations, their own founding principles and raisons d’etre.

For instance:

• The so-called Greens, who, as we know, care about nothing else except Trans^TM and Gaza currently, and actively boot out anyone who disagrees, even to the point of near-bankrupting themselves. As for the planet (literally) burning? What? Oh, pfft, the planet? That boring old thing? And giving puberty blockers and bone and organ-destroying artificial opposite-sex hormones to confused, unhappy or gay children is completely in keeping with what we are meant to believe are Green and sustainable principles, really? Nothing more natural apparently. For a party that claims to be “about the science”, it’s difficult to square with the anti-science theorising and faith based nature of gender id ideology. Not to mention the cheering on of the capitalist interests of the US pharmaceutical industry. And who could forget the Greens’ own public championing of (disposable) nappy fetishist Aimee Challenor and his now-jailed paedophile father before he flounced off to the Lib Dems and then to the US to live with a fellow fetishist who writes paedophilic literature? So Green! So righteous! So principled and not at all incongruous or concerning!

• Former human-rights charity Amnesty, as we’ve seen, actively works against women’s human and equality rights and makes false accusations the likes of which it was once set up to protest against. When called out, it reluctantly issues apologies, while then apologising to its anti-woman “activists” for daring to apologise for its defamations and targeting of women’s groups and female-only rape crisis centres. It doesn’t bother apologising to the smaller groups or individuals it’s defamed though (because presumably, they aren’t quite as scary as JK Rowling’s lawyers.)

• Then there’s the nu-look pro-patriarchy “intersectional feminists” who clearly don’t know what words like “patriarchy” and “misogyny” actually mean (let alone that “intersectional” was once kinda supposed to include “class’) and will absolutely trip OVER themselves to prioritise and plump up the cushions for men in dresses larping as women at all and any costs to other women. Their knee-jerk “prioritise the man” reactions whenever they have to choose between male “women” and, you know, actual women, have long been a sight to behold. Whether it’s “feminist” academics like Jacqueline Rose seemingly clasping her hands in absolute rapture over the misogynist likes of academic “Andrea” Long-Chu, his admissions that “porn turned me trans” and his descriptions of womanhood as being illustrated by for instance “an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes”, or the Mridul-Wadhwa-centering, wide-eyed Deborah Frances-White, a “Feminist” so Guilty that she clearly feels bad centering or caring about realities for other women at all, especially if they’re not part of that nice middle class dinner-party/literary circuit and are of the lower orders, nothing seems to be as important as The Men. Then there are the moderators of numerous supposed women’s groups that deal with, you’d think, 100% actual female things, like menopause, endometriosis, the agonies of female infertility, or day to day experiences of breastfeeding to, you know, actually give their babies necessary nutrition, who will excitedly and often angrily throw over the needs of the women who actually need their help, tripping over themselves to demonstrate their “inclusivity” to any dick-swinging female Larper who comes their way (and top tip: they ALWAYS will), shoving the actual women who need their service out of the way so they can fawn over the man who’s chosen to centre himself and his fetish in their group, with all the other women being forced to act as mere tools to serve his fetish.

• Particular disdain must be reserved, I feel, for those kneejerk young “intersectional feminists” who seem to have populated the boards and workforce of women’s rape crisis centres and other supposedly woman-centred charities, policing who can and can’t come in not on the basis of need or trauma, but on their willingness to put their own needs aside like good girls, submit totally to the ideology that everyone is who they say they are especially if they id as the sacred “trans” and accept men dressed as women among their number as if any of what’s happened to them corresponds to why and how it happens to women. Despite the evidence of raped, abused women self excluding (see Dr Shonagh Dillon’s research, for example) from services they really need as a result which is why JK Rowling set up Beira’s Place in the first place.

• I pretty much put Morris in this category; she doesn’t work for a centre but a newspaper, but seems absolutely determined the men in this ONE case should be prioritised over the women as long as the men wear dresses. Not only does she handwave away the significance (while acknowledging it for other sacred castes of men like priests and even talking about how long some men will go to get access to their preferred targets), she actively demonises and smears ANY woman who objects to the “trans identifying” version of this sacred group of men as “Far Right”, which she has chosen to double down on since. Which makes her about as useful as a chocolate teapot when it comes to advocating for women against male violence, which trans activism has always been very keen on. Morris cares about ideology and frankly her misguided perception of old sectarian “sides” over and above all else. She doesn’t give a fuck about other women as a group, not when it looks like she may have those with, let’s say, other political interests telling her what she’s allowed to say or think.

• In workplaces, meanwhile, Trade Unions appear to mostly consist these days mainly of middle class identitarians who now actively exclude non compliant working class women in favour of fans of bourgeois postmodernist identitarian movements imported from US capitalists, and don’t seem all that interested in current UK equality law, even though it was put together by a Labour government and incorporated many key employee equality rights victories from the past. Unions in the main now openly champion oppressors not the oppressed and tend to align with management and middle class ideologues where possible (see the Sandy Peggie/NHS Fife case and that of the Darlington nurses, who had to set up their own Union.) While, of course, proclaiming themselves to be against “The Far Right”. Most recently, the biggest unions were to be seen performatively flouncing from, sorry, boycotting the forthcoming Labour Women’s Conference, on the grounds that it excludes, er, men.

• Liberal Democrats have been a bit quiet on this lately, mainly due to irrelevance, but long ago became utterly illiberal and totally undemocratic in the service of the ideology, angrily denouncing any woman who wouldn’t comply and declaring that they didn’t want our votes anyway and didn’t want to hear it. (Naturally, this has nothing whatsoever to do with getting massive donations the pharmaceutical companies who produce puberty blockers.)

• Various very VERY embarrassing MPs of various parties who seem to have forgotten what their job is and who they’re meant to represent. We have the dildo-waving, Summer-of-Sex and Porn-Promoting, somewhat Carry-On named MP Samantha Niblett, who, not content with pretending that everyone but herself has been living in Victorian times up til now and doesn’t know about sex (talk about teaching your grandmother to… well. Seems to have escaped her notice that even the most hardened TERFY types either grew up as part of or were a direct result of the swinging sixties and liberating seventies. Did we Gen X’s suffer the lifelong trauma of those illustrations of that beardy bloke from the Joy of Sex for nothing?). She’s not keen on women being allowed to say no or have boundaries, it seems. Nadia “Gulag” Whittome we’ve discussed elsewhere. Meanwhile “LGBT” stalwarts like Angela Eagle and Kate Osborne MP seem more desperately wedded to the idea of gay conversion for lesbians through the back door of the wholly unethical, homophobic puberty blockers trial which has now got the go-ahed, than actually standing up for young lesbians’ right to be, you know, lesbians instead of getting medicalised for life in a futile attempt to turn themselves into straight men.

And so on and so forth. I could add more, but I hope you get the picture.

And all this nonsense, all this turning of what should be really basic principles and ethics and care on their heads JUST to serve the wants of the ideology and the very well connected pressure groups who are pushing it and all their gullible foot soldiers, many of them female, busily undermining their own rights. is WHY this “Tiny Minor Thing” is precisely what we feel we need to talk about disproportionately.

Because in itself, it’s wholly disproportionate and destructive.

Look, Gendershite has taken over EVERYTHING and burned it down. Sometimes to the point that I don’t know if we’ll be able to save or restore those things that are lost. And yes, I’d much rather be talking about anything else, but unfortunately, because of the destructive nature of it, many of us feel we have little choice. The forest, once burnt to a crisp is, I’m afraid, rather difficult to grow back with just a click of the fingers. Once it is lost, it is gone, if not forever, for a very long time indeed. But all these enablers have been busy fanning the flames of their own destruction. It’s absolutely bizarre.

Personally, I’d like to see those organisations and people return to their supposed principles, please, although I suspect many are by this point just too far gone. And if they are, to please just give up the ghost and prepare to be usurped by those who actually do care about those things. Because believe it or not, they still matter and even they will find they miss them when they’re gone.

It Is A Lie Universally Acknowledged in Upside Down Land (aka “Trans Reality”) and across huge swathes of the Fake Progressive “Left” & Lanyard Class that if you don’t happen to agree that men can literally become women or lesbians, or if you could spot a sissy-porn-addled perv with fake tits and a stiffy at 50 paces; that if you talk about single sex spaces, agree with the FWS Supreme Court Ruling, complain about things like male prisoners in women’s prisons, or point out that centering men in feminism kind of makes it, well, inherently not actually feminism, you could only possibly be a member of those contemptible demons of the age: “The Far Right.^TM”

It matters not one bit if you’ve had a lengthy background once deemed exemplary with regard to the purity of your political activism and/or voting patterns. You could have been at Greenham, a Stonewall founder or member, a gay rights pioneer or one of the many marching alongside for lesbian and gay rights back in the day. You could be a once-celebrated eco activist who fought a giant fast food corporation, a lesbian prison campaigner, an erstwhile Guardian journalist. You may well never have voted for a right wing party in your life, may have campaigned for political prisoners, for human rights, you could be a disability rights campaigner or mental health advocate. You might even be a member of the communist party.

NONE of that matters or counts in the least if you do not pledge 100% allegiance to the Cult Belief Framework That Is Trans. If you don’t, you’re done. You’re impure, unclean, suspect. You’re a bigot, equivalent to a white supremacist. You may as well start voting for Farage now, even if you hate him, disagree with all his policies, and have never voted even slightly to the right of Labour circa 1975. Nope. Your actual views mean nothing. You are DONE.

People like James O’Brien, Nish Kumar and his bro friends, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart and an array of other male panelists who imagine themselves to be the great and the good are regularly to be heard sniggering smirking patronising and dismissing the supposedly “strange” and “baffling” views of women who do actually care about women’s equality rights and the right to single sex spaces and services . They appear to think we are at best sad old dears taken in by the likes of Trump and Farage. Two men who have clearly spent MANY years with bookshelves weighed down by the considered tomes of Andrea Dworkin and Germaine Greer, no?

And if the “TERFS are far right stooges” narrative is to be believed, should surely have somehow travelled back in time to start up the nascent women’s rights movement, since our values are allegedly so “aligned.” Strangely, they’re not.

What bollocks. Why should other people’s historical and political illiteracy on the subject of women’s rights be our problem?

Unfortunately, it continues to be so.

Recently, as you’ll no doubt know by now, revered international human rights organisation Amnesty International (UK), which, to those who’ve been paying attention, has long been on the Men’s Sexual Entitlement To Do Anything They Want side of the argument, has published (although now sort of retracted) a highly defamatory, factually incorrect report listing multiple women’s and gender critical organisations as part of what they call the “Anti-Rights Movement”. And no, this language is not at all manipulative or propagandist or designed to put people in mind of “The Far Right”. This supposed Anti-Rights Movement, they claimed, is “snowballing” at an alarming rate and so they created a damning list of its many alleged perpetrators (anyone who doesn’t believe women can have penises, and including all gender critical organisations alongside pro Christian and anti-abortion ones, as well as woman-only rape crisis centre Beira’s Place).

Despite their wriggling when called out on these glaring defamations, this isn’t a one-off “error” that can be handwaved away. It transpires they have also for months been running online courses for the gullible, to “help” them recognise and address the supposedly “anti-rights” stance of so-called “gender critical” aka sex realist and feminist groups and individuals.

All while wholly misrepresenting the actual arguments and making false and deeply defamatory claims about what the majority of the organisations and individuals on their “list” believe. Such as the entirely spurious claims that the majority of “gender critical’ people and orgs in the UK are both funded and aligned with the US Christian right (provably false), are active opposers of women’s equality rights (provably false), anti abortion (provably false), conservative (provably false in the main although some individuals may be moving that way due to the current failings of the so-called left), supporters of conservative and rigid sex roles (provably false), anti-gay (provably false).

And oddly, it’s those who most wholeheartedly champion the backwards, sex-stereotype-based foundation of the entire “trans” movement who are mostly being funded themselves by zealous quasi-religious activists in the USA. Who have always appeared to have a rather more rigid and religiously-underpinned notion of expected pink n’ blue sex roles than the average person, let alone actual feminist, in the UK.

As a “Human Rights” organisation, Amnesty do not seem all that interested in human rights as they apply to female people either.

I mean, if they and their followers and donors genuinely believe the second wave feminists of the women’s lib era, the Andrea Dworkins, the Germaine Greers, and current activists and supporters, such as Julie Bindel, Martina Navratilova, all the women of Sex Matters and JK Rowling are especially known for their adherence to the idea of female subservience, conservative ideas of “femininity” and pink lady-brains, they’re historically illiterate and were clearly neither around back in the day nor have they paid any attention to the social history of the United Kingdom as regards equality rights. If they actually think “gender critical “ feminists believe that girls must be “girly”, boys must be “macho” all because we don’t agree women can have penises, they are entirely mad & need to understand how both facts and propaganda work. Because they’ve been made fools of.

Likewise, if they truly imagine the Communist Party of Great Britain and Morning Star, or numerous lifelong voters of Labour and the Greens are politically “far right”in any way they are off their rockers and probably not paying attention to anything outside their bubbles.

Strange. It’s almost as if something is not totally above board and has been deliberately manipulated....

Is This All Genuine “Belief” on Amnesty’s Part?

Although I think that many of those who still donate to them and other anti-women advocates will just be going along with it all because, natch, “the good guys”, I’m not convinced that everyone who spouts the lies really DOES believe them, even if many of their supporters do. Even back in those innocent days when feminist women believed it was just a misunderstanding and we just needed to explain our true position, nobody was prepared to take us at our word or even listen. We had already been deemed unworthy of respect and deplatformed.

The problem, it is clear, is that great many leading advocates of gendershite have been DELIBERATELY telling lies about women they want to harm and control and prevent from being heard, and in exactly the same way as other abusive men and their enablers.

Sadly, those men, including those men who id as trans, and their fawning bros, many enablers include women, who I equate with the ilk of “well, if you were just nicer to him like I would have been, he wouldn’t have got frustrated/had to run off with someone half his age/had to berate you constantly for your failings/had to hit you”, who will always side with “the man” no matter what.

A great many TRAs tell deliberate outrageous lies about our motives, beliefs and intent, and shame both us and anyone who might attempt to find out for themselves or even ask questions about the truth of the situation. It’s always been a deliberate tactic of demonisation and silencing and pretence, not because it has roots in any genuine concern that a bunch of non-violent women are actually “far right Nazis”, but to whip up the crowds and to make the vile abuse of those mainly female opponents easier and more palatable.

Not everyone realises the capture that’s gone on. Many “civilians” on the left, if not most, still don’t, in my experience. The capture which Amnesty and others has long been suffering from, serves the following two purposes.

• Not to have anyone listen to what the “other side” are actually saying, outsource your thinking, and believe whatever you’re told by “trusted” sources rather than see and think for yourselves that something may have changed or doesn’t add up.

• To therefore get to demonise sex-realist women enough, with NO recourse to justice or a right to reply, to make it easier to abuse us and excusable, even “righteous” to enact physical violence on us. eg punch a terf, “take a hammer”, “rape her with the sharp end of a baseball bat” and so on. ALL of which are documented threats to feminists and other gender critical women by transactivists. And perhaps, in the light of both the general rise in misogyny and violence against women and the Ann Widdecombe murder, (although there’s no evidence that had anything to do with genderism despite the worrying similarity of messaging by Bash Back), be taken a little more seriously. Because they are escalating. And yes, they do mean it. They do want to hurt and kill us.

Versions of similar abuse tactics are seen in domestic abuse cases everywhere. Ostracism, “the crazy ex/she’s mad”, false DARVO accusations that the victim done exactly what the abuser has, gathering together the enablers with the abuser’s story to turn himself into a victim, and the actual victim having no recourse to a fair hearing, and “aw, poor man, she must’ve deserved what she got” type stuff from those around which enables the abuser further, and can make him seem immune from any attempts to stop him. And then even if the courts do rule against the abuser, the false narrative is out there and believed by his cohorts anyway. It’s often too late in that respect.

So what Amnesty and its cohort of transactivists have done here is all about who really calls the shots. And the TRA movement has long known how to gain power through entryist tactics to powerful, trusted organisations and getting the institutional enablers it indoctrinates to wield and enforce that power for them. Very clever. Very abusive. Very non-democratic, manipulative, unfair and wholly anti-equality and rights.

It seems to me that Amnesty long ago stopped being a human rights movement and is completely unfit for purpose, and not just for this latest idiocy. It only cares about some people’s “rights” and appears entirely performative and selective as to which humans matter. Like a great many formerly groundbreaking “progressive” organisations, it’s entirely lost its way along with its supposed ideals through laziness and the kind of complacency that has allowed bad actors and bullshit anti-equality, woman-hating ideologies to infiltrate its ranks. It has been Trojan horsed and poisoned, quite deliberately, by an extremely well-funded anti-woman’s movement in order to become an enforcer for a men’s sexual fetishes which will help it, if it is not prevented, dismantle the hard fought for rights of women and also children.

I can only pray that the legal pushback from all those individuals and organisations Amnesty have been busily defaming finds its way into the public sphere, and particularly, to the ears of those who most need to hear it, to understand what has happened.

But given the extent of the capture, and even with fightback, I fear we may still be a long way from that. I really hope I’m wrong.

Just to share these useful articles from Murray Blackburn & Mackenzie on the Amnesty defamations so far.

Murray Blackburn McKenzie (13th July 2026) Amnesty International UK Rights And Wrongs Part 1

Murray Blackburn McKenzie (23rd July 2026) Amnesty International UK Rights And Wrongs Part 2 A Troublesome Audit Trail

So yes, I’m back. This post is just a brief “hello again,” really. Along with a Big Sigh… or perhaps a frustrated scream.

How long I will be back posting the newsletter I do not know, but for now, I feel this little Substack needs a bit of revival because, oh, god, there is still such a lot to say about The Bullshit, isn’t there?

2026 and it’s STILL going on.

Still!

Over a year after the Supreme Court Ruling, and we still have a great many wankers, both literal and figurative, including, shockingly now, the main unions and female MPs who imagine they’re progressive, wailing on in Parliament, in open letters, on the streets and TV and anywhere else they can about the ruling and the only just released EHRC guidance that clarified that our historical UK equality laws for women ARE in fact based on sex and not the nebulous 1950s “feminine” essence so beloved by sexist men and wavers and adherents, like themselves, of the odious pink and blue sex stereotype flag. And that no, the law didn’t actually change at all, although few appear to have understood this.

“Shocking!”

It’s shocking they say. Soooo complicated! Unworkable, apparently, though how it managed to “work” without much difficulty at all for about a hundred years appears to elude them completely. A bit like the facts or how the law of the land works, really, which is kind of worrying when it’s MPs who don’t appear to know this. The guidance HAS to be overturned, they say. Because the terrible plight of “trans people,” they say. You know, the guys who always be like…

When of course, anyone with eyes and who can read knows that the reality has long been more like:

Naturally, when such parliamentary enablers say “trans” they only mean the literally male ones, because as usual, nobody gives two shits about the actual females who identify as men. Any outrage about, say, the poor trans man who got raped within an hour of being in the Maudsley because she’d been put int a psych ward with actual men who knew very well what sex she was? The one who was completely failed because of this absurd, anti-safeguarding ideology and its reality-denying tenets?

‘Course not. Her tale is sadly missing from the tales of woe and “terror” and supposed hardship of… all the literal men not being allowed to watch women and girls getting changed and listening to us pee or claiming that they’re being “excluded from public life”, just like women were by the urinary leash and many other things, because of course, there’s nothing of ours this particular group of men won’t appropriate. They LOVE cosplaying our historical and current hardships and oppressions. As many of them have told us themselves, it really turns them on.

“Demonic Witches!”

Apparently, it is still the case that us horrid bigoted women who understood the law, refused to believe in sexism, ladybrains or any of the rest of the idiot guff, cared about our human and equality rights and STILL say no to men are somehow agents of all that is evil.

And all those of us who refuse to believe that a man in a dress is a literal woman, and not letting such men do what they want whenever they want are like practically committing GENOCIDE now, so utterly demonic are we.

Meanwhile, the female MPs signing *that” letter are tripping over themselves to show all the boys what very good and nice girls-next-door THEY are. Yes, even Diane Abbott, who frankly, I thought had a bit more wherewithall than that, although in fairness, she’s been a through the mill a bit in the last few years.

“BASH Them Back!”

Bash them back, they say, or at least that’s what’s Jolyon “ex tax lawyer & fox basher with two trans id activist daughters” Maugham of the “Good” Law Project— busily feeding many an agonised middle class leftie email inbox with his fake grifting “activism,” legal disinformation, defamations and calls for dough— reckons is what we wimms who dared to say no or understood the law regarding our own historical rights had coming to us. Just LOOK what we made them do! Who do we think we are? Back in your box, bitches… or else.

“Don’t Listen To Their Incantations! It’s A Trap!”

And for God’s sake, don’t let “bigots” hear anything about the actual law or reality or the fact transactivist arguments are and have always been a steaming pile of illiterate crap if you happen to be studying at the University of Oxford. Wanted to see what Michael Foran had to say? Expect to have your name taken down! Expect to be “gone after”.

Expect to be stopped from using your critical thinking or your brain or hearing what the law actually says and why, watch how “protest” supposedly means that an expert lawyer who’s just written a book about the fact that other people exist and have rights too can’t have his views heard because there are two of your fellow students standing in front of him stopping him speak, both looking like the pasty, underfed, pathetic trans-obsessed cultists they are.

Because, as their cult movement has been promoting the last ten years, equality is apparently bigoted. Women having anything for ourselves, especially boundaries is bigoted. Saying no to men is bigoted and not permitted if the man concerned is wearing a dress. Saying you don’t agree that the bloke in a dress with a boob job is actually literally a woman when he isn’t is bigoted. Telling the truth about what you’ve literally heard “trans women” saying about actual women is bigoted. Saying you don’t think some male fetishist “breast feeding” a tiny baby with whatever yuk is coming out of his fake boob is a good, healthy thing is bigoted. Talking about women’s material realities and needs is bigoted. Women existing is bigoted. Caring about human and equality rights and the law is bigoted. Reality is bigotry, as are facts, statistics, science, and all the rights the gullible little posh twats like the two above (who I’d be prepared to bet rely on mummy and daddy’s money) who can afford to be complacent about those rights because they will always be inured by their class privilege from the consequences of them being removed.

And no “trans people” are not a “vulnerable minority”. As we know, they’re an absurdly powerful one, which isn’t surprising, given that the subgroup “trans people” who are the most powerful in that group are literally the exact same people they always were.

White. Heterosexual. Middle class. Privileged. Middle aged. Patriarchal. Men. Ones With Fetishes Who Demand Their Every Desire Be Fulfilled. Now larping as “late transitioning trans lesbians.”

Vulnerable, my arse.

Yet our gullible idiots in positions of power and influence are still falling for it, Still enabling it. Digging in, in fact. Seriously?

What a low-calibre bunch.

As a number of us have noted, the hottest current smear tactic to dehumanise ANY woman who speaks about their own legal rights (presumably in order to make it easier to “righteously” abuse and threaten them and remove their human rights) or even to question any aspect at all of gender identitarians’ Scientology-like belief framework is just to call us all “FAR RIGHT”.

It’s SO easy to ramp up the tactics to make sure nobody who considers themselves “liberal” will listen to us, isn’t it? And many people desperate not to be seen as “the baddies” or face social opprobrium right now will of course have a knee jerk reaction, succumb to their fear and believe whatever you tell them. Job done.

Witness this recent entry from proudly masked pseudo-socialist Tarquins calling themselves “anti fascists” and by implication, all the women they were rallying against and call “transphobes”, “Nazis”

Now, Tarquin. Is this woman, Natalie, who was speaking at said demo “far right,” really? Honestly? And what do you think should be done to her, in your view, for giving her own opinion on her own life and dignity in the care she’s given?

Then there was a lovely zealot person called Clare Hymer from Novara Media, quite deliberately equating ANY woman at all who disagrees with her at all or questions the necessity and “inclusive” value of Drag Queen Story Hour with the Far Right. Because nobody who isn’t far right would EVER question the inclusivity & diversity value of little girls being presented with grotesque and often sexualised caricatures of adult women by male adult nightclub performers called completely non-sexual things like Flow Job, would they?

Or how about this from Time Magazine, who decided to categorise anyone at all who questions or objects in any way to Hershey’s putting a man in their International Women’s Day ad as “conservative social media commentators”

And don’t forget people like this unhinged, frankly dangerous little man, a Professor, believe or not, viciously smearing JK Rowling as pretty much Goebbels. Because this is totally rational behaviour on his part, and he doesn’t sound like a demented woman-hating cultist demonising and inciting hatred and violence towards a woman who speaks about womens’ rights at all, nope. And Vox have a lot to answer for as they’re helping propagate the misinformation.

So Who ARE Being Smeared As “Far Right”?

The “Far Right” smear, as I mentioned in my previous post, is directed at ANYONE at all, but mostly women, who oppose The One “True” Ideology (TM) despite its many flaws and inconsistencies, despite its inherent misogyny and homophobia, especially lesbophobia, despite its illiberalism and elitism, and despite the the verifiable fact that the many people opposing this bullshit include:

Women who marched against ACTUAL fascists like Combat 18 and the BNP back in the 90s.

Funny how those claiming they ARE now the fascists weren’t even born yet and haven’t the faintest clue about UK social history, isn’t it? Lazy and ignorant.

Plus as I pointed out in my previous post, long time left wing Green activists & Labour, Lib Dem & SNP supporters, voters, and funders, materialist socialists the Morning Star & Communist Party of Great Britain etc. People who are demonstrably neither “Nazis. People whose entire voting history has always been for left-of centre parties: in the UK, Labour voters, Lib Dem voters, Green and SNP voters. Lesbians and gay men, activists who were founders of the Gay Liberation Front in the UK in the 70s, gay founders of the first Pride marches in the US and who were present at the first Stonewall riots, original founders, long-time employees and former campaigners and active champions for UK Stonewall, gay journalists & campaigners. 2nd wave women’s liberationists, people like ex Greenham Common activists, builders of women’s rape crisis centres and rape shelters and creators of helplines in the 70s and 80s, Generation Xers, former punks, New Romantics, goths… A wide range of people across society including members of the public in a full range of jobs and backgrounds, including academics & thinkers. People of ALL academic backgrounds, those with and without university education, including a very large number of people who have degrees (often several) and who have indeed been to university despite the claims that only “uneducated” people could possible oppose or question this. Many staunch Remainers, pro-Vaxxers, pro-choice, vocal anti-Trumpists. 2nd wave feminists, radical feminists (the RF in “terf”) and women’s liberationists who explicitly decried pink ‘n blue sex stereotypes and systemically eschewed “traditional” gender roles and rules about appearance as tools of the patriarchy. Let’s remind ourselves of where the crossovers are, shall we? Given genderists actually have WAY more in common in terms of backwards sexist ideas about “gender” with conservative or “traditional” Christians than we do.

OK, So What ARE These “Far Right” Views, Then?

These are the actual viewpoints being espoused by these women who are being labelled as “Far Right.”

• Being of the apparently heinous view that sex is real and politically salient as all the facts and history will tell us, gender is unreal, socially constructed and is simply regressively conservative stereotype boxes about “femininity” and “masculinity” and that “woman” is the material reality of having been born (no, not “assigned”) biologically female instead of a sexist “pink” personality type based on 1950s stereotypes. No, we don’t have “pink” ladybrains. Oh, and you’re every bit as much a woman if you’re female and you don’t fit “pink” stereotypes as someone who does. That, after all, was one of the key tenets of feminism. It’s not about being “feminine”.

• The knowledge of gaslighting tactics and controlling/coercive behaviours and ability to spot them at 50 paces

• Questioning the rise in medical transitioning of young people, and children being told they must be “born in the wrong body” if they don’t play with the “correct” toys or like or do the “correct” things and other conservatively sexist nonsense. And no if it WAS simply a “moral panic whipped up by the far right” as claimed, why is this “wrong toys/clothes/likes/dislikes so I knew I was the opposite sex” rubbish cited publicly BY pretty much every transitioner in transitioning stories we see being feted in the media? It’s not us saying it or making this up: it’s genderists and transitioners themselves.

• Questioning an ideological framework which relies on regressive sex stereotypes to, er, “defeat” sex stereotypes, supposedly, and send kids down irreversible medical pathway if they don’t fit designated pink and blue boxes.

• Questioning in particular the sudden massive rise in girls who don’t fit sex stereotypes believing they can’t “really” be girls and must therefore be boys & be put on hormones & sent for double mastectomies. The investigations by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass as per the Interim Cass Review confirmed what we already knew regarding the significant change in cohort they were treating at GIDS

• Not to mention questioning why no major alarm bells were ringing given that, as Cass points out, a disproportionate percentage of whom were also a) autistic b) looked-after children and c) same-sex attracted. And questioning this is “far right” apparently. You know, from questioners like Corbyn supporter Dr David Bell and GIDS Child Safeguarding Lead Sonia Appleby who was awarded £20k in employment tribunal due to her employers preventing her doing her job. “Far right fascists?” Are you sure?

  All those “Nazi” whistleblowing clinicians too, obviously. Marcus and Sue Evans? Kirsty Entwhistle? Matt Bristow, who, along with other gay clinicians became deeply concerned about the homophobia they were witnessing? But yeah, sure, the only reason so many of them questioned what was going on in their own workplace were their own “far right” tendencies and a “moral panic” whipped up the Daily Mail—YEARS BEFORE the DM even started reporting on it because certain “left wing” outlets specifically decided not to and it was best to avoid telling their readers the truth.

• Questioning the ethics and underlying homophobia of an ideology which seeks to send children down medical pathways for being “gender nonconforming” when the evidence shows the majority of these young people will turn out to be gay or lesbian AND the majority (80% ish) will desist if not pushed down the medical pathway. Let’s not forget the homophobia of ex Mermaid's CEO Susie Green’s husband who could not copy with his little boy playing with Barbies. So let’s chop his cock off and make him a “girl” then! Phew! Crisis averted! Or what about little Kai Shappley’s mother, who tried to “beat the gay” out of her child? Just trans him (the way they do in Iran if a gay person wants to avoid being executed); that way it makes it all nicely heteronormative, doesn’t it?

• Questioning the imposition of mixed sex spaces and the removal of all single sex ones without consent or ANY discussion with those most impacted by their removal . And no, the fact that some more subservient women are at pains to tell us all that “they’re fine with it and nice girls, not like those evil bigot terfs over there” does not make it democratic. Is wanting to be consulted about the removal of our own rights and facilities any more"far right"than questioning decisions to remove basic rights or services from other demographic groups in society without consultation ? Why is this “different?” I don’t think it is. It’s not “far right” to say so.

• Understanding and talking about the on-the-ground history and impacts of women's rights activism and legislation instead of spouting reality-defying postmodernist and imported US woo about your flawed concept of ‘intersex’ and 'colonialism and patting yourself on the back for being “intellectually superior” while reality continues beneath you, not changing, while you castigate, sneer at and bully anyone who thinks reality is important or that evidence against your theories is pretty overwhelming. It’s definitely super intelligent to have theories which don’t stack up against the facts, isn’t it? And definitely “far right” to question your academic brilliance or to expect your ideas to be put under scrutiny without you having a tantrum and having to stalk, hound anyone who questions you out of their job and threaten them with violence.

• Questioning why we are suddenly being told to believe something that goes COMPLETELY against all our knowledge, in many cases long held left wing political beliefs, against observable reality, the evidence, the documented history, and in many cases our lifelong beliefs and facts about women's rights and feminism , and that the timing of that demand coincides EXACTLY (2015) with a US lobby-funded ideological push via successful former gay rights lobby groups like Stonewall in the UK to legally recognise any men who wish to be as women, no questions allowed. And no, Oceania hasn’t always been at war with Eastasia. We know and remember because we were there living the history you’re trying to rewrite. Not buying it.

• Questioning the often public demonisation and defamation of women with long histories of progressive activism and who we KNOW do NOT have the beliefs they're being accused of having, and questioning why they’re being lied about, demonised often all over the world and roundly abused, threatened with violence and sexual assault, and made an example of in an attempt to shut them up and any woman watching who might be thinking of supporting them. And questioning if doing so is actually “the new frontier of human rights activism” in any way. And asking what is “progressive” exactly about failing to support them or actively joining in the misogynistic abuse, lies and demonisation?

• Questioning if demanding that people submit to all and any of your demands and move aside to prioritise you while you appropriate their lived experience is a “human right”. Questioning if demanding, with punishment for non-compliance, that everyone perceives you in exactly way you perceive yourself and never question or criticise you, and have their human rights removed if they do is a “human right” in any way. Or that enforcement of your One True Faith on everyone in society isn’t tantamount to dangerous religious fundamentalism and hugely authoritarian and contrary to the fundamental human right of freedom of belief of everyone in the country.

• Questioning ANY group in society being made a “sacred caste” which cannot be questioned and is exempt from basic child safeguarding rules, especially when that group has been shown to include just as many predatory sex offenders as any other non-sacred group in society.

• Questioning how and why so many government and powerful media organisations and the rest of the establishment appears to have been captured and are now trying to enforce the non-factual ideology on the entire population like a national religion despite the mountain of evidence against it. And helping to enforce the policy that nobody is allowed to question or discuss it in any way. Especially not those its enforcement impacts the most: women & girls.

• Questioning how and why equality laws appear to have been changed on the ground “under the radar” “ahead of the law” and without proper public or democratic discussion or the usual parliamentary scrutiny, and the hatred being whipped up against any woman who questions or complains about this in any way.

 None of this is “far right”. Nor is it “made up” or “unevidenced hysteria” either - there’s plenty of evidence from original sources for all of this. And NONE of it is a "minor" issue either. At all. Unless you’re someone who can’t “do” the big picture, think critically or follow things through? Or you’re someone who REALLY doesn’t want other people to have the chance to think critically about what they’re being told. Your way or the highway. Not controlling, totalitarian or in any way fascist at all.

“But We’re Allowed To Criticise Right Wing Beliefs”

Nobody said you weren’t. We’re talking about you FALSELY accusing people of believing things they clearly do not by simply labelling them “Right” or “Far Right” and whipping up hatred against them based on your lies about who they are and what they believe.

You’re not “criticising right wing beliefs” in any way. You haven’t the first clue what the people you are accusing of being “right wing” actually believe, and you clearly don’t care whether they are or not any case. That’s not the purpose of what you’re doing, after all.

The purpose is to shut those who disagree with you down. So LYING about any dissenter’s political affiliations and beliefs, mixing in some guilt by association, another classic propaganda trope, is a deliberate shut-down tactic, which you are using for control and to whip up hatred against the many women who largely do not in any way have the views you claim they do. It’s an authoritarian and abusive propagandist tactic. There is nothing righteous or inherently “left wing” or liberal about the actions of anybody who chooses to do this. Their motive is primarily to control the narrative and limit the spread of information. Which is something done by authoritarians everywhere and throughout history.

“You’re Just Being Held Accountable…”

And finally, I’m happy to be held to account for my factual, legal, socially conscious, fairness loving, materialist and ever-questioning views. I’m not happy to be threatened with violence, loss of income, attacks on my family and friends, or put in fear for expressing them. I’m not happy to have my beliefs lied about. And currently, due to the capture and sheer levels of enabling, weaponised tribalism and quasi religious zealotry, I simply don’t trust our Dear Authorities or even former allies in political parties to keep women like me safe or to uphold our basic human rights. It’s febrile, uncomfortable and dangerous out there.

And until there is accountability for those propagating the constant lies and defamations despite proof to the contrary, I’m not going to credit those who say things like “you’re just being held accountable and you’re a bigot” with any integrity or ethics whatsoever, thanks. They simply have none. They’re idiots.

I hope to God that there will one day be a reckoning for all the media organisations and influential/powerful individual enablers who have joined in lying about people and the abuse and hatred that they have gladly and wilfully contributed to. No, I wont accept the excuses anymore. They are unpleasant, easily led, tribal people who lack ethics, values or any moral compass. Certainly not people I look up or would allow to “educate” me, but narrow minded authoritarian fools who need to look in the mirror and educate themselves first. And if that’s “far right” of me, sue me. You’ll have a hard time convincing any judge.

Now, according to Fashionable Current Activist Lore, the ONLY people in the world who might POSSIBLY question, feel “something’s off” about or directly oppose the currently compulsory genderist belief framework, and the compelling and enforcement of ALL its tenets at ALL levels in society are “clearly”:

a) Far right evangelical religious conservatives influenced and funded by the same in America

b) Nazis & obvious bigots driven by irrational hatred

c) Tories

d) Homophobes who supported Section 28

e) Pearl-clutching Mary Whitehouse type housewives

f) “Thick Daily Mail readers” & plebs too stupid to think for themselves unlike clever Guardian and Independent readers

g) People who’ve never been to university so are therefore obviously thick

h) Anti vaxxers, Trump & Brexit supporters, QAnon conspiracists and Laurence Fox and other embarrassing undesirables.

Plus

i) Traditionalists and people who fully support the enforcement of regressive sex roles and heteronormativity.

So that’s the established view, one that apparently “everyone” who cares about social justice knows for a fact is true.

Do they really, though?

The Problem With These Characterisations

Well, the main issue is these characterisations are factually NOT true at all. SOME opponents do fit the stereotype, but the fact is there not only a great many notable exceptions, they may even be most of them. And the entirely verifiable reality that questioners of the ideological framework, especially in the UK aka “Terf Island”, do include MANY of the following appears to have passed the true believers by.

a) Long time left wing Green activists & Labour & SNP supporters and funders, materialist socialists, the Morning Star & Communist Party of Great Britain, a number of current Observer and ex-Guardian columnists, trade unionists, long time feminist women’s rights and anti-misogyny campaigners such as Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Joan Smith, author of the seminal 1989 book Misogynies.

Are these really “far right evangelical conservatives influenced by Christian evangelical Americans?”

b) People who are demonstrably neither “Nazis” or political extremists of any stripe, people who in terms of values, beliefs and voting patterns would largely be seen as political leftists, liberals and centrists & who believe open discussion and the human right of freedom of belief without oppression in a widely diverse and mature democracy is a good thing.

Is this commensurate with such people being “Nazis?” Do you know what “Nazis” and “extremism” actually is? Believing in reality isn’t “far right” or extremist. Neither is knowing sex matters in reality, or thinking that laws should be robust and based in fact, not fantasy. And no, having the temerity to say no “no” and being able to ask questions and be consulted about proposed changes to laws covering your OWN current legal rights isn’t remotely “extremist” either.

c) People whose entire voting history has always been for left-of centre parties: in the UK, Labour voters, Lib Dem voters, Green and SNP voters, many of whom have left and some of whom have been ousted by their parties who say their questioning of the ideology in any way, despite the tenets of genderism having little to do with the parties’ declared central values or concerns, is not welcome, and they don’t want their votes.

What makes you think all these people are “suddenly” Tories and espouse “Tory” values now? Why would they do this all of a sudden? Why would their core values have changed so much just on this one issue? Might you have missed something crucial here?

d) Lesbians and gay men, activists who were founders of the Gay Liberation Front in the UK in the 70s, gay founders of the first Pride marches in the US and who were present at the first Stonewall riots, original founders, long-time employees and former campaigners and active champions for UK Stonewall, gay journalists & campaigners, LGB people and straight allies, who joined together to march and fight explicitly FOR gay rights and AGAINST the Tories’ Section 28 back in the late 80s and 90s.

“Homophobes and the exact same people who supported Section 28” really?

e) Ex Greenham Common activists, lesbians, 2nd wave women’s liberationists, builders of women’s rape crisis centres and rape shelters in the 70s and 80s, Generation Xers, former punks, New Romantics and goths, people who grew up in the sexually liberated 60s, 70s, 80s are now “pearl-clutching sex-hating censorious Christian 1950s Mary Whitehouse type housewives”.

Are you sure about this? Honestly? Did we really jump straight from the 1950s to here, or did any cultural and social changes actually occur over the last 70 years?

f) A wide range of people across society including members of the public in a full range of jobs, including academics & thinkers, writers, artists, long-time readers of ALL newspapers (yes, including the Guardian & Indie), educated people, working class and middle class people working in all industries and businesses who read widely. All “thick Daily Mail readers” & plebs too stupid to think for themselves unlike naturally clever Guardian and Indie readers”? Don’t you think that’s showing YOUR limited understanding of the wide diversity of people in society, a narrow minded, presumptious and limited approach to information and a complete lack of both respect for diversity, and for the intelligence and capabilities of all your fellow citizens? Have you ever dared read “unapproved” or sources of information or non-curated accounts and viewspoints from original sources? How do you ensure that your information is accurate?

g) People of ALL academic backgrounds, including a very large number of people who have degrees (often several) and who have indeed been to university high IQ people, lecturers, those with PhDs, professors in a wide range of academic disciplines including sciences, biologists, the humanities, philosophy, history, psychology, sociology and a range of both arts and science subjects, doctors, clinicians, psychiatrists, paediatricians, well known biologists and fertility experts, those who work in think tanks, experienced investigative journalists for established publications.

Why are you assuming that everyone “educated” will share your views and anyone who doesn’t simply isn’t clever enough to understand? Even within universities, have you never spoken to or had discussions with people in different academic disciplines to yourself and do all your views tally all the time? Or do you look down on certain other disciplines, such as science, as “not intellectual enough?” or “impure” in some way? What is the evidence base for the assertions you make and do they all stand up to scrutiny? How would you argue your case if an academic in a different discipline fundamentally disagreed with you and presented evidence to back up their positions that opposed yours? Would you be able to discuss with them and present a good case, or would you feel too challenged to allow that to happen? Would you seek to prevent publication or open discussion of their views? Would you claim that they are too “stupid” or “uneducated” to understand yours?

Are these all “people who’ve never been to university “ and even in cases where those who disagree with you haven’t, how do you know that makes them unintelligent? How are you measuring intelligence? Solely by adherence to your own personal viewpoints? Is there perhaps a chance that they could possibly know anything you don’t? Have you ever asked them the basis for their reasoning or views?

h) People who urged others to get vaccinations and felt the government didn’t do enough during Covid, ardent Remainers, outspoken critics of both Trump and Johnson, those who openly find Laurence Fox and his diatribes against his ex wife and others an entitled, privileged, sexist & often racist embarrassment are all “Anti vaxxers, Trump & Brexit supporter, QAnon conspiracists and Laurence Fox”? Are you TOTALLY sure about that?

i) 2nd wave feminists, radical feminists (the RF in “terf”) and women’s liberationists who explicitly decried pink ‘n blue sex stereotypes and systemically eschewed “traditional” gender roles and rules about appearance as tools of the patriarchy, were often castigated and called “disgusting” and “mannish” by traditionalists and misogynists for wearing dungarees, no makeup, not shaving off body hair, having short hair, deliberately refusing to conform to society’s standards of beauty for women or campaigning against beauty pageants, campaigned for women to be paid equally to men, campaigned for better childcare to allow women to work outside the home and become financially independent, fought for abortion and reproductive rights for women, were the first generation who had the choice not to have children themselves and many chose not to are “Women who fully support the enforcement of traditional regressive sex roles” ? Well, no, they’re clearly the complete opposite.

Where on earth are you getting this shit from and who is telling you that this is who “terfs” and other “GC” people are? Have you honestly never met or spoken to any in real life or read anything about radical feminists or the history of women’s rights?

This being the case, we then have to ask YOU:

• What and who is telling you this, and who is prompting you to spread misinformation and outright lies about your opponents, who they are, and their political and social beliefs? What do you think the impact will be on those people you’ve targeted or “called out”? Do you think that’s a good thing?

• What is the motivation behind doing so? Do you think it’s acceptable to spread misinformation and actively defame people who disagree with you in order to achieve your political aims? Is creating “fear” of daring to oppose a legitimate political aim? What other political leaders in history have done so and are they people you’d support? Think Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Kim Jong-un and numerous military dictators. Your kind of thing, yes?

• If the women and people who you disagree with are threatened physically with violence, death and sexual assault, not to mention losing their jobs or means of making a living, as a result of people deciding they’re “Evil Nazis who don’t deserve human rights” on the basis of such misinformation about who they are and what they believe in an attempt to dehumanise them, are you culpable for that in any way if you have encouraged this or knowingly spread misinformation, and do you think there should be any consequences in a civil society for doing so?

• How would you react if someone took a dislike to you, your views were lied about and you found yourself persecuted and threatened for it to the point you lost your job and lived in fear of violent assault?

• Who gets to decide which of your fellow citizens have views that are beyond the pale, what the only acceptable views should be, and what human rights they should have removed if they express or indicate that the views they hold or might hold differ from the approved views in any way? Is there a kind of Pope figure who decrees this? Who checks who’s deciding ? Who voted for them? Could this ever be open to abuse or corruption, do you think? Could this power ever be used against yourself? Are you ever permitted to question such people, and how can they be removed if they misuse this power?

• Is it ever acceptable to threaten to kill, rape or beat up your political opponents, those you fundamentally disagree with, to report them to employers and campaign to have them lose their jobs & means of livelihood as a political act? Should people campaigned against ever get to have a right to reply? How does this fit with Equality and Employment law and Human Rights legislation? How does history view those who use such tactics against political opponents? Have “mistakes” in who was targeted ever been made, and what impact did this have on a range of citizens in that country? Is this what living in a diverse, egalitarian, liberal, democratic and free society is about, in your view? What kind of utopian society do you think will result from this kind of activism?

• If you do think it’s acceptable, what do you think this says about the integrity of both your “social justice” campaigning and underlying values, and why should people who care about human rights for all, fairness, truth and honesty trust you? Can you explain what “social justice” and “human rights” values you’re espousing here and how this fits with other civil and human rights activism in past generations? What do you think is going to result from it? What is your desired end point?

Have you really thought about this in any detail, checked your sources of information, or considered implications? Are you happy with those? Honestly? Because I really think we’d all like to know.

Otherwise, I think it’s fair to say that all you “kind” people congratulating yourselves on how you’re the “right side of history” appear to be engaging in and enabling defamation, smears, lies and propaganda against pretty much ANY people who disagree with or question you at all. That doesn’t sound very “right side of history”, “kind” or “progressive” to me. It sounds sinister, authoritarian and hateful. And not what good people do.

Lazy classism does keep on rearing its ugly head, doesn’t it? And I find myself irritated yet again today by a number of those self-appointed priest class “intellectuals” who don’t let a lack of facts, evidence or ethical integrity or the actual harm their unevidenced and often directly refuted theories do in the real world disrupt their self identification as both “progressive and “cleverer-than-thou”.

And despite all the evidence showing that, like many identitarians, they are neither of those things in reality, and saying or imagining you are a thing doesn’t mean that you actually are. Yep, that’s right. These are people who are neither particularly smart or progressive in their thinking or worldview, and from the evidence of what they’re prepared to tolerate in the name of their favoured ideologies, not bastions of ethics or integrity either. So no, I won’t be looking to you and your narrow-minded lack of curiosity about the world outside your bubble to tell me what “purity”, “intelligence” and “being a good and righteous person” is, thanks.

Assumption of Intellectual & Moral Superiority

Fresh ideas, creativity, explorations, looking at the world through different angles, questioning everything and challenging assumptions, all great features of intellectualism in a cultured, forward-thinking and diverse society.

But if or when your theory or belief or wish comes up against cold, hard, reality and not only isn’t backed up by the evidence, is being directly refuted by it, you actively choose to reject that evidence as “beneath you” and cling on to your theories come what may, that’s really not a superior intelligence holding out against intellectual pygmies who can’t look beyond their noses or who are clearly SO gullible and thick they believe whatever the “right wing press” (anything outside the Guardian, and even that can be suspiciously not pure enough at times, amirite?) tells them.

It’s quasi religious zealotry and not a little bit of preening ego. It’s a lack of intellectual curiosity. And it’s displaying a lack of fundamental intelligence and capacity for critical thought and dot-joining that any truly intelligent person would be ashamed and embarrassed by. So why are you doing it?

What You’re Actually Supporting

There’s literally nothing intellectually or morally superior about believing fantasy over reality, batshit theories that fly in the face of evidence, telling lies about people, joining in mob hate campaigns and being incapable of following through to impacts in the real world (that you clearly think is beneath you also). It’s what thick, braying, gullible, unintelligent people who can’t think for themselves or outside their limited, elitists bubbles do and have always done throughout history. It’s what elitists everywhere who don’t care about those they deem “the little people” do. In that, you are really no different from those rich Tories you undoubtedly claim that everything about you fundamentally opposes.

Your problem is that your assumption of your own intellectual and moral superiority has led you not to be able to accept any questioning at all, and certainly very little self-reflection. You ensure that everyone around you provides you with a self-affirming bubble, where your beliefs are bolstered and never questioned, and you take it upon yourself to oust and shame anybody who dares to question your often very shaky intellectual assumptions. Increasingly, we find that when you are questioned by someone with access to the actual facts or data, your “intellectual superiority” collapses. Which is why you “no debate'“ them isn’t it? But by refusing to discuss or encounter anyone who disagrees, you’re the authors of the downfall in the intellectual quality of your own arguments.

Meanwhile, you’re the ones tying yourself into knots trying to excuse your support for the mobbing, propagandist and misogynist hate campaigns against certain female authors who understand (through lived experience) and have done far more for traumatised women than you have EVER done in your life, and which involve multiple death and rape threats and telling outright lies about their motivations. I’m still not seeing how you justify your hatred or the vile threats and bigotry you’re enabling, or your defamations of people who have far more understanding and compassion than you do. All I’m seeing is your privilege and how sheltered you are from things that impact others, frankly. Ever heard the term “check your privilege?” Well, instead of directing it at other people while you consider yourself naturally above any questioning due to your supposed moral purity, I suggest you learn to do the same.

You’re the ones handwaving away the experiences of multiple victims of DV and what most experts actually know about what coercive control is and how it works, and you’re embarrassingly oblivious to that and your own ignorance about it. And you’re happy to demonise as “thick” and “easily led” anyone whose reading might extend outside your own very limited and increasingly propagandist small puritan Guardianista bubble, while failing to face up to your own obvious limitations in terms of the information you allow to pass before your eyes.

You’re the ones gaslighting yourselves to try to find intellectual justification for your support of regressive baby pink n blue sex stereotypes that went out in the 1950s and somehow imagining this is progressive and a superior form of intellectualism. You’re the ones demonising women who stand up for women in prison, and sneering at women who dare to talk about the realities of sexual assault and harassment, not to mention ignoring the very fundamentals underpinning women’s legal rights, and cheering on regressive, violent misogyny as if it’s “political activism”. You’re also big fans of censorship and oppressive authoritarianism, aren’t you? Of course, you are so perfect and pure, you honestly believe you’ll always get to be one of the enforcers rather than the censored, don’t you, and that you get to set the terms? What a pity that most of human history tells us that you’re almost certainly going to be proved wrong about that.

Spouting Scientific Woo—No, Sex Isn’t A Spectrum

You’re the ones spouting utterly pseudoscientific claptrap about DSDs proving “sex is a spectrum” and therefore trans and non binary being scientifically proven, despite the absence of ANY correlation whatsoever between DSDs and the regressively sexist “gendered” personality spectrums that you (usually arts and humanities graduates who look down on mere scientists as the uneducated peasantry) seem to think are now “science”. While accusing those who disagree with you on scientific grounds (and an understanding of scientific analysis and method) of being “thick”, while you bang on about clownfish and the like like a fucking idiot, ignore all the alarm bells and mountains of evidence (presumably on the ground that they’re coming from ‘the wrong sort of expert’, like clinicians, paediatricians and safeguarding leads) and seem incapable of basic critical thinking, intelligent analysis and dot-joining, or questioning of your own massively flawed assumptions. You also appear to be ignorant of history, of the dangers of logical leaps and logical fallacies in arguments, and appear to lack any awareness at all that there could be other more evidence-based belief frameworks that support gender nonconformity without believing in a load of fact-free religious guff about ‘born in the wrong body” and sending kids down unevidenced, irreversible, medical pathways which render them sterile.

Self Identifying “Working Class” Heroes

You’re the people who so often self identify as “working class” despite overwhelmingly middle class roots, social circles and interests. You do know that “diversity” isn’t just “people with different haircuts from you”, right? You operate in a fantasy world that creates a simulacrum of what you imagine is “working class reality” (I dunno, did you go to a comprehensive school or work in a chip shop once and you think means you’re somehow a genuine working class voice?) and make pronouncements often, but rarely stoop to listen to the actual voices of those who are actually living the “identity” you’re claiming for yourselves. You might find your fantasies are a little out of date. You treat actual working class people as the uneducated peasantry who shouldn’t even be given the vote , much less listened to, and assume working class people who disagree with you are only doing so because they clearly aren’t as clever as you and don’t have your superior knowledge or intellectual capability, and need you, the Lord & Lady Bountiful types, to bring the loaves and fishes and “educate” them. By which you mean indoctrinate them into your current religious beliefs.

Beliefs that don’t stand up to scrutiny or evidence, and which they’re not permitted to question, ever. What on EARTH makes you think there’s anything remotely “clever” or “superior” about that?

It’s something I’ve noticed extremely frequently in the gender debate, and others too, and nearly all of the time when the issue’s to do with women. People, including those who imagine themselves “progressive”, appear to have lost the ability to distinguish between “facts that aren’t the way I would wish” and “prejudice and bigotry.”

The narrative here goes that anybody who doesn’t agree with what the person want to hear must be “clearly” driven by bigotry and prejudice and has whatever bunch of views and beliefs they’ve decided they have. So that can be women who support single sex spaces, getting branded “far right” and “homophobes” against all the evidence (and the fact that many of these women are on the left AND fought FOR gay rights and AGAINST Section 28 in the past), or women who point out the stats on male rates of violence being called “misandrist bigots” and informed that any opinion we have can only arise from a “man-hating agenda”.

“Pure prejudice!” they all screech alike. “Bigots!”. And make it their business to tell us so at every opportunity, while ignoring all the evidence that our opinions are based on. Why let the facts get in the way of a juicy or comfortable narrative that you can rail against while you pretend to be progressive or care about fairness or truth?

What IS Prejudice?

As a reminder, prejudices like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc arise out of FALSE assumptions that are not backed up by the evidence. It’s prejudice because it’s a FALSE BELIEF based simply on a dislike or discomfort or rigidity about the target group, and the facts actually don’t back up your assumptions.

No, it’s not true that gay men are any more likely to be sex offenders or paedophiles than heterosexual men. That’s homophobia. No, it’s not true that women are incapable of flying planes, being scientific or logical, or leaders, or that men are incapable of being nurturing, warm or emotional, or that little girls have brains that are “innately” drawn to kitchen toys and pink and Barbies, or little boys are “innately” drawn to trucks, or there’s something very amiss that is so terrible it needs correcting if a little boy likes butterflies or flowers. That education is pointless for women, or our brains aren’t developed enough to be given the vote. That’s sexism. A prejudice. Arising out of belief. Often a belief about what’s “normal” and “correct” and what isn’t for either sex, but that isn’t backed up by the evidence.

Uncomfortable Truths

Uncomfortable truths are things that we may not necessarily want to be the case in an ideal world, but the evidence shows they are, and often will tell us reasons. I think it’s the job of anyone who genuinely does want a fairer world both to address those truths and analyse the reasons.

I, for instance, would rather that I as a woman was as physically strong as an average male, and that all women as a group were on average as physically strong as average men as a group. But I’m not (I’m far below the average height for a man) and the overwhelming biological evidence shows that women on average not. It’s not sexism; it’s a fact. And it’s not a case of women “not trying hard enough” in sport, say; our skeletons are, on average smaller, we are, on average, less muscular, we don’t have as much testosterone. NONE of this means that we are a ‘subset of humans’, mentally weak, ‘meant to stay at home’ or ‘naturally subservient’ or indeed pathetic weak emotional creatures. Those are not logical conclusions; they’re sexist beliefs extrapolated from those known biological differences. But it is those known physical differences, not prejudice, that informs why we have separate women’s sport to allow us to be competitive, in much the same way as you have different weight categories in boxing. It’s fairer; it’s about parity, like for like. If we didn’t? Women and girls in sport would all but disappear. The truth that on average men can far more easily physically overpower women than women can with men is also a big part of why in certain circumstances we have single sex spaces. Denying this and dismantling them because we erroneously decide “it’s sexism” will simply give your average male predator a free pass and allow him dominance in a way that has not been possible for more than a century. Do you honestly think that’s fairness and parity, really?

And it IS factually true, I’m afraid that men (biological males incl. those who identify as women) of any orientation or ‘identity’ are overwhelmingly more likely to be sex offenders than women (biological females incl. those who identify as men). 98-99% of sex offenders are MALE. No, I don’t like it either. I’d rather nobody was subject to the actions of sex offenders at all. But they are, and the sex differences here are a fact, not a prejudice. It is also a fact that a majority (over 80%) of victims of male sex offenders are women and girls (the biological kind). It is one of the reasons why the prevalence of rape and sexual assault tend to be issues that women’s advocacy focuses on worldwide. It’s not “sexist” to say so; it’s about one demographic focusing on issues that are particularly prevalent in that demographic.

It is also factually true that there appears to be ‘something going on’ with the small subset of males who identify as trans women on average compared with other males overall, including gay males. As I said, there’s NO evidence that gay males are any more likely than straight males to be sex offenders, for instance. But from the relatively small amount of data we have, such as from prisons, where over half of the small population of “males who identify as women” are in prison for sex offences specifically, compared to around 18% of the much larger male prison population as a whole, and a tiny 2-3% of the female, that there is an issue. Yes, it’s a disproportionately small population which magnifies the stat. In real terms, because of sheer numbers, a woman is far, far more likely to be sexually assaulted by what is termed by genderists as “cis” men than one who identifies as a transwoman. BUT crucially, only one group of men, including convicted rapists, is being given access to female prisons, for instance, entirely on the basis of self identity. With fewer and fewer controls on who “gets to” identify as the opposite sex or not, how exactly are we even defining the difference between “transwomen” and “cis men” here? There is a problem with definitions. Something is causing that stat, and it’s not “prejudice” to point it out. There will be reasons. Either the “trans community” inherently contains, on average, proportionally more sex offenders than others, or predatory “cis” men are simply using trans self ID in order to get easy access to women, which naive politicians all over the world have simply been given them, based on the false assumption that “they’re women and behave on average like women” in terms of crime stats. So which is it and why? And what can we then do about that?

I would rather live in an equal world than an unequal one. But the truth is, and all the evidence backs this up, is that not only do we categorically NOT live in an equal world, we can also see from the evidence where the main inequalities lie. Pointing them out and talking about that is not “prejudice”. It is not sexist to point out the realities of sexism, for instance. And it’s not “transphobia” or “bigotry” to examine or ask questions about statistical differences in different populations, especially not when proposed changes impacting on other populations and on provisions set out under Equality Law. You want robust law that survives in the long term, then that is what you’re going to have to do.

Exceptions & Outliers: “But Women Do It Too”

Averages aren’t everything, of course, and it’s important not to extrapolate from “most” or “average” situations to draw all or nothing conclusions in individual circumstances; doing so creates loopholes and false conclusions in itself.

So “No woman could ever be a sex offender or kill her children” is a false statement, as is “All men are violent domestic abusers and rapists.” All women do not experience sexual assault; all women are not sexual assault victims, some women have committed sexual assault and murder. Some men and boys experience domestic violence and rape. Some women are abusive. Neither all or most trans identifying members of the general population are sex offenders, just as most men aren’t and equally, most women don’t “lie about rape” any more than “all women just use men for their money”. But all trans women are not ‘vulnerable’, most do not show the same stats as women on average, some men who identify as women are indeed sex offenders and at far greater rates than women. Those are the facts. How are you going to deal with those?

Exceptions and outliers exist, and need to be accounted for, not ignored or brushed under the carpet. But when you’re talking about probabilities and likelihoods, as well as resourcing, particularly when it comes to safety, and crime, of course the facts regarding averages are gong to be considered.

Knowing Male V Female Violence Stats Isn’t “Prejudice” Or “Sexism.”

This week, we had yet another terrible instance of controlling male violence with the horrific murders of Epsom College head teacher Emma Pattinson and her 7-year old daughter, Lettie, by Emma’s husband. Now, the likelihood of a family being found dead with no outside involvement and no suggestion of carbon monoxide poisoning and it NOT being, as we all dreaded, yet another appalling case of the all-too-common family annihilation by the man in the picture was slim, and many of us suspected as much and said so. But no. “Sexism! Misandry! It’s just as likely to be the woman! Reporting you for sexism!” They were all at it, crawling out of the woodwork on social media threads like Jean Hatchet’s. The fact that the papers had been strangely quiet on praise of those that know of them of the husband, the “isolated incident” code? We didn’t want to be right, but of course, we knew we were.

Why? The truth? Family annihilation is horrifically common and it’s nearly always a male crime. Pretending it isn't or that we're saying "women are perfect and NEVER violent" is denying reality. Yes, far more men than women are murdered overall. But by MEN, not women. Most murders of women (there's one approx every three days in the UK) are by males in DV situations.

It's not some kind of competition; it's about reality for different groups of people. Sexual assault is overwhelmingly a male to female crime. Nobody is saying it NEVER happens to men & boys (it does, and again, notably mainly at the hands of men) or that women NEVER perpetrate violence or assault, but the facts and all the stats, worldwide, speak for themselves. The big problem is male violence and how it manifests in different situations who and how others become victim to that and the reasons for that.

Reality-Denial Is Enabling

Understanding reality is not prejudice, bigotry or "sexism". Reality-denial is enabling or excusing, and I wish people, whether it’s frothing internet MRAs who choose to pop up like proverbial bad smells on the timeline of anyone vaguely feminist, or “progressive” young women imagining that denial of the stats and tripping over themselves to prioritise men over other women is somehow being kind or egalitarian, would just STOP BLOODY DOING IT.

And no, posting pictures of psychopathic killer Joanna Dennehy in an “Oh dear, you’re wrong” way, or saying “Rose West exists” does not change the facts of who commits most of the deadly violence in the world, and I’m not sure what you imagine it is we’re arguing that this would be a reasonable or logical response.

What Does Denial Achieve?

Look, be-kinders, pretending we have an equal, blue-sky world when we really, really don’t won’t create one and isn’t magically going to make all the bad stuff in the world go away. And if you DO genuinely care about “stopping bad stuff”, the actual issues aren’t going to get solved if you can't even name them accurately, are they? I'm guessing many of the men who persist in denial about yet another case of family annihilation by a jealous, angry man, simply don't want things to change. And many women don’t want to know, because, as the late Andrea Dworkin pointed, out knowing and seeing the truth as it is when it comes to being confronted with the prevalence of misogyny is horrific. Being aware of it at all times does make life uncomfortable, to be perfectly honest. I can get why you might want to stick your head in the sand, but perpetuating the myths will only make it worse for us all in the long run.

So you can live in a fantasy world where you’ve decided that everything is already equal simply on the grounds you wish it to be so, if you like. You can see what you want to see, ignore ‘difficult’ things and people that contrast with that narrative, ignore them, brush them under the carpet, marginalise them, if it makes you feel better. It won’t make the world around you any more equal, of course, and won’t change a bloody thing. But at least you’re in the safe space of your own head, and that you’re happy is all that matters when it comes to the big, bad world, right? But for the love of god, don’t claim the enforcement of your denial is “activism”.

Instead, you could, as others do, face the often uncomfortable realities and inequalities in our world head on, name what they are, try to find the reasons for them, and work to try and change them. Trying to shout these people down, calling them “bigots” when in reality they have facts on their side and care far, FAR more about fairness equality and inclusion in a widely diverse society than you appear to do isn’t “social justice activism”. It’s fashionable, superficial cosplay. It’s lazy badge-wearing, hashtaggery. It’s misguided ignorance and all it does it help to bolster and reinforce the unequal world you claim so hard to oppose. Those of us who disagree with you think addressing facts and uncomfortable truths over some idealised non-reality will need to be the way forward. But do continue to deal in your fictions if you don’t really want anything to change. And we’ll remember that you weren’t prepared to help.

PS Since this post was written, some of the press reporting about the murders of Emma and Lettie Pattinson by Emma’s abusive, controlling male partner has left a great deal to be desired. In particular, a Daily Mail article that hinted that Emma’s career success somehow “drove” her husband to murder her and their little girl. Guess it’s best women don’t have good careers, in case their husbands are jealous inadequates who are “driven” to murder them, then, eh, DM? Appalling reporting, and they’re not alone in cases of this kind.

If this disgusts you too, do sign Level Up’s Campaign to IPSO, Dignity For Dead Women, regarding stronger guidelines on the reporting of fatal domestic abuse. No more “nice guys ‘driven’ to murder their wives”, “good man who just snapped” or any other such enabling victim-blaming bullshit.

Ever since last year, when both Eddie and Jase (both men I used to like, imagine that?) rolled their eyes, sneered and patronisingly told the pesky women who still want their rights and question gender fundamentalism’s most sacred tenets to “Get into the 21st Century”, there’s been a spate of self declared Very Edgy & Fashionable People (including politicians and most of the arts and music world) shaking their heads in horror that the old hags who oppose them just REFUSE to get with the times. Obviously, us old munters’ll all be dead soon, thank god, but in the meantime, something really must be done about us. Our very presence threatens the natural social progress of humanity and fundamental civil rights.

So let’s take a look at what “getting into the 21st century” and being super super progressive and forward-thinking now entails, shall we?

If you too feel like you need a personal “values upgrade” to drag yourself and your ideas about civil and human rights into the gleaming modern 21st Century world, here are the views you now should be espousing:

“It Ain’t Nu Til It’s Pink ‘n Blue!”

Ensure you firmly believe that everyone fits into regressively sexist "pink" and "blue" personality traits based on sex stereotypes that were last a 'thing' in about the 1950s and cheer on & enforce them, preferably with menaces, under the auspices of your pink n blue sex stereotype flag.

Claim that this is “breaking down the patriarchy and the restrictive gender binary”. Remember: “Embracing Sex Stereotypes To Fight Sex Stereotypes!” is completely logical, not at all counter-productive, and will definitely work.

It’s clearly the only way and other methods (like challenging the validity of the pink/blue gender boxes themselves as functions of the patriarchy, or claiming that persons of either sex can have any personality and it doesn’t change their sex) have obviously never existed, been thought of or done before, even with some success. For example, by the generations of feminists who battled them and gained women & girls a ton of cultural and social change plus legal rights that are now being reversed by people waving pink and blue flags and claiming to be progressives.

Remember, “All REAL Women Are Feminine”. Hello ‘50s! Oh, And Hi Again, India (You’re More 70s, Really).

Ensure you push the line that to be a "real woman", you must definitely conform to what patriarchal society terms "feminine" in terms of your outfits, your likes, dislikes and acted personality and any woman or girl (the born that way kind) who doesn't fit the box therefore cannot be permitted to count as a woman".

No head tilts? Nah. Good at maths or science and bad at housework? Good grief! Live in jeans or have short hair, know how to change a plug or a tyre, not a lover of dresses or dolls? You’re non binary at the VERY least. Don’t wear makeup or shave your legs? Disgusting! You’re obviously a MAN, then, like that terrible Germaine Greer! Not into glitter or handbags, have teen discomfort with your boobs and never had a giggling pillow fight on a girlie sleepover?

Cut those breasts off IMMEDIATELY, they/them! Don’t be silly, YOU don’t get to call yourself a woman! The only people who do are the ones who’ve made an effort, the ones with penises. You know, the ones who are actually men.

And it’s amazing, ‘cause it turns out that actually, history ISN’T full of pioneering or powerful or strong women at all. Nope! Because anyone that was those things can’t actually be counted as a woman. All those Viking warriors with female skeletons? Well, not women, obviously, because actual women aren’t that fighty. Fightiness is a man thing. So clearly, they had to be trans. Joan of Arc? Not a woman at all. SHE HAD SHORT HAIR for a start. Look! Actual well known non-binary. If you refer to her as “woman” you actually diminish her, you know. If she was really a woman, she’d have been totally happy with a life of wearing the right clothes and knowing her place was second.

And Elizabeth Ist? Woman? PLEASE! When she said she said the heart and stomach of a King she was clearly leaving a clue to her inner identity for future historians. AND she never married, so there we have it. Look at that side-eye! She was telling us. Not to mention that short hair, look.

NOTHING to do with the power she needed to hang onto, the precarious status of women, or her father divorcing her stepmother, then having her mother’s head chopped off, both for the crimes of failing to give him a son . (And how would he even know anyway? It’s not like you can tell the sex of babies through any simple means, for God’s sake!) No, our Liz just couldn’t come out in those unenlightened times, not like now when it’s the first thing you tell people about yourself when you instruct them on your pronouns. So obviously she couldn’t actually have been a woman. She was just as Queer as fuck.

“Your Kid Likes The “Wrong” Toys? OMG! Get Them To A Doctor Immediately!”

The most important thing is to ensure you watch carefully for ‘signs’ of failing to conform to the right pink or blue markers to and medicalise kids who don't play with what you think are the "correct" toys for their sex to decide they’re trans and try to turn them into the opposite sex. Very easy to spot, and you can check with their teachers too, and observe what clothes they like and don’t like, and if they’ve been liking undesignated things or saying things that are suspect, such as not liking Barbies if they’re a girl. Or liking Barbies if they’re a boy. It’s definitely all about the Barbie.

(You can find the rest of this article, which is about a young TM and “how they knew they were really a boy”, here)

I didn’t like Barbies and preferred to play football or with a drum kit

And naturally, it’s very important if you notice such signs to tell kids that NO, they’re NOT the sex they appear to be but in fact, they must be "born in the wrong body" because you know, everyone has a “gender identity” and not fitting sex stereotypes is a "health issue" and "must be corrected" or else your kid will kill themselves apparently, or at the very least hate you or report you to social services.

Also it gives you massive kudos points with the richer, artsier Guardianista type parents in the playground. And of course, then you get to wave your “allyship” flag and march along at Pride, which thereby cleverly buries the secret discomfort and absolute terror you felt because you know you’d lost sleep worrying in case your child playing with the wrong toys meant they’d turn out to be gay. But no danger of that now, eh? Phew! Transing will make them nicely heterosexual AND you get to look progressive! Go you!

“Gay? Nah, You Just Haven’t Met The Right Girl/Man Yet”

Be sure to deny homosexuality is a thing, call it “a medical term” and try to shame & stigmatise & whip up hatred towards people who are solely attracted to members of the same sex & say so & call gay people, women especially, "bigots" if they aren't enlightened enough to be "open to" sleeping with members of the opposite sex. I mean, he’s wearing a dress, ffs, lesbians. What more proof do you want? Instead, say this! OR accuse lesbians of being like racists if they don’t want to do dick!

Try to disguise the fact that compulsory bisexuality and denying gay people the right to say no is the next step before “Well, being gay is just a lifestyle choice after all. We told you all along that all you really need is to find the right opposite-sex person and then everyone can be straight again, just like in the good old days.” Thank GOD for Dentons, all that US money and all the forced teaming between LGB and TQ+ to make it happen. And no-one spotted a thing. Phew!

“Some Men Are Women The Way Black Women Are Women” Racism, Ahoy

Free yourself to be racist enough to go about claiming that men can be women the same as black women are women. As long as you stick #BLM on your Twitter profile, nobody can possibly question the integrity of your values or accuse you of actually being a very, VERY old fashioned racist underneath. (I mean, don’t forget, you can just look at some of Willoughby’s exchanges for your inspiration!)

Also ignore what any women of colour are telling you if you don’t agree with them about safeguarding or kids and women’s rights. I mean, as a white upper middle class person, you clearly know better than they would, good grief. World’s gone topsy turvy. Who do they think they are? ESPECIALLY women like these, all of whom have been involved in taking legal action, two for discrimination on the basis of beliefs, (Raquel Rosario Sanchez, Allison Bailey) Keira Bell against the Tavi, and Child Safeguarding lead Sonia Appleby against her employers at GIDS for preventing her doing her job, for which she was awarded £20k at tribunal). Don’t they know who you are? You’re a progressive, you know.

“Science And Evidence? What? Oh, I Just Prefer My Beliefs, Thanks.”

Simply handwave away the idea of "science" and "evidence"—fashionable people who’ve done gender studies courses are far, FAR too clever to lower themselves to mere evidence or verified statistics about male crime rates, for instance— and instead demand everyone believes easily refutable woo, & have them burned at the metaphorical stake publicly if they refuse or have alternate, real-world explanations for any of the same phenomena. They must be stopped and anyone who might threaten to express similar views given enough threats to scare them into silence.

For EXTRA cool points, just copy the Scientologists, the Spanish Inquisition, the Witchfinder General, or perhaps the Taliban for approaches to dissenters or apostates.

Claim NO-ONE Needs Single Sex Spaces Anymore, They Are Akin To Segregation & Apartheid And Women Are Just As Bad As Men.

Pfft! Who needs single sex spaces! It’ll definitely do those rape victims good to make them mingle with some men in their rape support groups. They will benefit from not being allowed boundaries, and you can also suggest that they gaslight themselves with male-inclusive “therapy” to help them get over any “bigoted” or “irrational” fears of being attacked by men. Even though they’re traumatised because they’ve literally been attacked by men. It’s incredibly sexist of anyone to mention the actual statistics though, isn’t it? FAR better to brush that under the carpet and pretend that when it comes to sexual assaults, we already live an equal world! That’ll definitely even things up a bit.

And prisons, well. Wasn’t all that just something to do with evil wealthy white women and colonisation? Oh, it wasn’t? Oh well. They’re only poor women in prison anyway, ideal to use as guinea pigs. Just put a convicted male rapist in there with them, and see if anyone notices or cares that a few women get raped, or about their basic human rights! If not, you can roll it out EVERYWHERE. Geneva Convention? Oh, well. Stuff like that is just for Olden Times. Ours is a brave new world, where things like that don’t happen any more.

Finally, Don’t Forget: “Women Who Say No Are Bad And Unkind. Why Can’t They Just Be Nicer?”

Now march the streets of the UK and other Western countries wielding pink and blue baseball bats and axes, or waving signs declaring that women who want to retain their current legal rights gained under equalities legislation are actually members of an underclass group to whom human rights don't apply and who should be beheaded (be sure to include pictures of guillotines), beaten & sexually assaulted, and ensure everyone knows you’re "morally righteous".

Extra progressiveness points here for the more frenzied and deranged you can be. You could even try jiggling your moobs for the cameras to show how not-a-fetishist you are. No-one likes a shrinking violent, I mean, violet, do they? You go, girl!

So have fun out there, guys n’ gals! And do keep safe. You don’t want horrible old women being allowed to say things you don’t like, or to have to accuse them of putting razor blades behind stickers again, do you? And remember. The more you do, the more open you are, the more you show the world, EVERYONE will surely agree that you’re definitely the nicest, kindest, most modern, and most progressive people in it.

Since our fave question “What is a woman?” has become old hat and something of what gender extremists now helpfully call a “dogwhistle” so they can safely ignore it (as well as never answering it without circular reasoning), I’m thinking I personally want to press on with some new and frequent lines of questioning this year. That perhaps might prompt onlookers to have a think, even if the genderists themselves are still too extreme or mantra-spouting to be capable of answering.

So here are my initial 15 questions. I’ll add more as I think of them, but do let me know of any extras you think should be added too.

1. “What Is Trans?” How does someone objectively know they’re trans, how would they know they’re NOT, and who is and isn’t included in the definition? Be precise. How would YOU test for “transness?”

2. “Is It Possible For Someone To SAY They’re Trans And Not Be? How Would You Know?” Where is the dividing line and what are the criteria? How would you know if they are not telling the truth or if they are incorrect?

3. “Who IS “Binary Exactly?” How would YOU determine if someone is binary or non-binary? What questions would you ask them? How would you make the assessment of whether they are nor not? By looking at them, talking to them, what?

4. “What Is A Man?” Because I think the issue of who “gets to” count as a man and who doesn’t, according to men and “male allies”, and who decides this, is the key to a lot of men’s attitude to this. So let’s keep asking.

5. What Are “Female” And “Male” Gender Identities, What Do They Consist Of?” And how would you know if you have a “male” one, a “female” one or a “non-binary” one?

6. Following on from that, “How Does ‘Gender Identity’ Differ From Regressive Sex Stereotypes Exactly, Then?” What are the differences? Can you identify them?

7. “How Is Fitting Personality Traits, Likes & Dislikes Into “Pink” And “Blue” identity boxes that you call “Male” and “Female” Challenging To Sex Stereotypes?” Is there any reason that they can’t ALL be deemed gender-neutral? Who decides which are “pink” and which are “blue?” Why? Are you aware that feminists and women’s rights advocates have been fighting these limiting definitions for well over a century now?

8. “Is It Possible, In Your View, For A Person You Call ‘Cis’ Not To Adhere To Stereotypes For Their Sex?” For instance, is a woman who didn’t like dolls and dresses as a child, wears trousers, likes short hair and is good at maths permitted to call herself a woman? Is a man who had dolls he loved as a child, is a nurturing kind of person and happens to love baking and the colour pink allowed to call himself a man? If so, how would you differentiate them from someone “trans” or “non-binary” for example?

9. “What Beliefs Do You THINK ‘Gender Critical’ Feminists and ‘TERFs’ Have About Sex And Gender? Where Did You Get That Information?” In what ways were Second-Wave Feminists, for instance, known for their adherence and championing of sex stereotypes of ‘femininity’?

10. “What, In Your View, Is The Correlation Between DSDs (Intersex) Conditions And Spectrums Of So-Called Gender Identities, Personality Traits Or Any Other Measure Of Trans or Non-Binariness?” Can you point us to studies that demonstrate a correlation?

11. “How Is Having Body Parts Removed & Irreversible Plastic Surgery To Physically Emulate A Member Of The Opposite Sex An Example Of “Authenticity?” Or “being your true self”? Is being medicalised for life with opposite-sex hormones “authenticity”? How? If we gave anorexics liposuction, would that make them more “authentic”? How is the body dysmorphia of an anorexic different from the belief that you are “born in the wrong body?”

12. “When In History & Globally Were Trans Identifying Males (‘Trans Women’) As A Group Specifically Ever A. Treated As The Property Of Males In Law?” B. Refused Education, The Vote, Equal Pay Or Property/Inheritance Rights On The Basis Of Their Supposedly ‘Inferior Female’ Brains? C. Expected To Vow To ‘Obey’ Their Husband On Marriage? D. Expected To Submit To Sex With Husbands Regardless Of Consent As The Male’s Legal & Moral Conjugal ‘Right’ To Sex? E. Aborted Or Murdered At Birth For “Being The Wrong Sex”? F. Been Expected To Be ‘Naturally’ Subservient To Males In Order To Be A Good Example Of Their Sex?

13. “What Evidence Can You Show Us That Trans Identifying Males Have Different Patterns Of Criminal Offending Than Other Males, And Akin To That Of Females?”

14. “Why Were Single Sex Spaces And Services Fought For Historically?”

15. “Why Is It Unacceptable To Self-Identify As A Race You Are Not, But It Is Completely Acceptable To Self-Identify As A Sex You Are Not?” Which other categories is it okay to identify into? Age? Country of birth? What are the criteria of acceptability, what is beyond the pale, and what criteria are you using to decide that?

I am sure there are numerous others. Do let me know if you think of any - especially if they’ve proved effective in any discussions you’ve had!

Additional Questions

16. “In What Way Is A Male Who Identifies As Female And Is Still Attracted To Women He Calls “Cis” The Same As A Lesbian?” Are lesbians—women sexually attracted to other women— permitted to be solely same-sex attracted? And if not, can you explain how this isn’t homophobia on your part? How has a male’s sexual orientation changed if he is only attracted to women, given that sex and “gender”, as you keep telling us, are not the same? Surely, regardless of his identity, if he is not sexually attracted to other males, whether they be transwomen or no, he remains a heterosexual male?

17. “Do you think that lesbians are obliged to consider this individual in their dating pool?” If yes, are you saying that bisexuality should not just be optional, but should be obligatory, or are you okay with gay people saying openly that they’re not going to be sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex? Do you think if a gay person says this, it’s “bigotry?” And do you differentiate between gay men and women in how you think about this? If so, why?

18. (From Ute) “Why do men who ideate they exist as a female persona insist on being called the "mother" of their children, displacing the biological mother?” Where this happens, is it acceptable or fair, either on the actual mother who is being displaced, or indeed the children involved to insist on this? Do they get to have a say? Why or why not? What role does the woman’s 'consent ‘ play in this, and isn’t assuming that the actually female partner should simply submit to her male partner’s wishes rather a misogynist view?

19. (from Ute) “Why do (so many) female therapists of the "affirming" variety also insist on this for their patient, violating another woman's rights?” Where this happens, is this acceptable in terms of boundaries or fairness? Is the impact on the woman in the partnership also to be considered with as much importance as the male, and her feelings about a fundamental non-consensual change in the terms of her partnership allowed to be aired, or is she expected to simply be supportive? If so, why don’t her needs and feelings matter?

20. (from Dee) “What is a gender?” Be precise. When should it be used, what does it refer to exactly, and, as above, how does it differ from “sex stereotypes?” If it were to be put into law, how would you define it? And can you give historical examples of where it was “gender” rather than “sex” that defined things like voting rights, property rights, primogeniture, rights on marriage, and employment and pay rights for women in the past? What might happen to those rights in law if you replace “sex” with “gender”? Have the underlying reasons why we had to have those laws to secure women’s rights gone away, do you think, or have they been held at bay by those clear anti-discrimination laws being in place? How will you stop sex discrimination going forward or are you assuming that “gender” will cover it, even if some of those “gender” includes are of the male rather than the female sex?

21. (from Dee) “Do we also have internal versions of other physical characteristics like height or eye color that could be different from the physical characteristics? If I feel I was meant to be tall and want people to see me as tall, could I identify as tall even though I’m short?” I mean, you could wear contact lenses for eye colour, but is someone wearing stilts that makes them a foot taller the same ‘height’ for say, medical purposes, as someone who actually IS a foot taller? Does my BMI change if I wear stilts?.

22. (Dee) “What is accomplished by changing words?” If I get someone to call me a “birthing parent” instead of a “mother”, that’s just a different word for the parent who gives birth to the child. Both express the idea that one parent gives birth while the other doesn’t. Why is “birthing parent” inclusive of trans people but “mother” isn’t (however, see Ute’s point above). Why is it considered so important to change words and remove the meanings of words like “mother”, “woman”, “lesbian”. And do you think it’s as important to change or remove words that relate to men’s experience as it is to change the ones that relate to women’s? Why or why not?

23. (Dee) “How do you know what it feels like to be the opposite sex?” What are you basing it on? Is not feeling. that you fit into the “box” for your own sex the same thing as being of the opposite sex, do you think? What are you basing that on?

24. An additional excellent set of questions here, from Twitter User Nettleshippy.

    https://twitter.com/Nettleshippy/status/1649134683144220688

It’s December 2022. A judge in Scotland rules that the word "sex" doesn't signify anything material, and the word "woman" has to include some men whenever those men feel like it, because they're the most oppressed people in the country. Women? No-one wants to hear from them unless they agree to their own subjugation. Their views, according to the First Feminist, are simply "not valid" despite any of the evidence, so let that be an end to it. Even if, as polls show, most of the Scottish population seem to disagree with her. Even when she's starting to get her own ministers resigning on grounds of conscience on the matter, and wondering what the hell happened both to their dreams of an independent Scotland and integrity. Wondering also, perhaps, what on earth it is that the Scottish Greens hold on Nicola to render her this incapable of letting go of such an obvious and massive vote-loser.

Beira's Place

Meanwhile, the gender warriors of social media, a notable majority of them in this case male, largely self-identifying as "left wing" "thoughtful" and "caring", have worked themselves up into a frenzy of hate-filled rage. The reason? JK Rowling has only gone and put her money where her mouth is and had the NERVE to fund Beira's Place, a new women-only service (named after the Scottish Queen of Winter) for female rape victims in Edinburgh. What a terrible person she must be! It's as clear an example as any, they tell us, of Rowling's enormous "spite" and sheer "hatred of trans people". Despite it being the female sort of women who are the overwhelming majority (over 80%) of  victims of rape and sexual assault the world over, and what with us KNOWING because they TELL US that many female victims will self-exclude if they aren't able to recover without the presence of males. Yes, that includes males who identify as women. It’s not about how you identify.

Yet such women aren't the right kind of marginalised apparently, and can be presumed to just be silly and hysterical lady-brain havers, members of the dim lower orders whipped up by the Daily Mail, those horrid old women the righteous all know as terves, and being so thick they fall for for culture wars rhetoric entirely invented by the Tories into believing that their own lowly instincts, trauma-related needs and knowledge matter in the least. Don't they know anything about just how privileged they are? No, they need patronising, gaslighting and re-educating by by their supposed betters, to remind them of who's important in this world. NOT themselves, obviously, validating male identities is infinitely more important, and their own recovery from rape and violence be damned. In any case, there’s a FAR bigger enemy to tackle: The Witch Joanne Rowling. After all, what reasons other than sheer bigotry could there POSSIBLY be for a self-made wealthy woman with personal experience of DV and misogyny-drenched hate 'n smear campaigns to fund a service centering the specific needs of women brutalised by men?

Women-Only Rape Services: The "Monument To Hatred"

In response, The Independent acts fast to prove its progressive credentials and makes its plea for kindness and care. "A monument to hatred!" barks Ryan Coogan, the misogynist it commissions to comment on JK's Act Of Supreme Bigotry, comparing the woman charitably setting up a service specifically centred on the expressed and known needs of traumatised female rape victims for recovery with the kind of person who'd set up a "whites-only orphanage."

Not once can Ryan bring himself to express a smidgen of empathy for the raped women the service is for. Or to recognise that up until very recently ALL women's shelters were precisely that, which is why single sex provisions are in the Equality Act, and that nobody with an ounce of compassion would have ever suggest that female rape victims should be expected to share recovery spaces with males, any more than they should be put in cells with them in prisons or share changing rooms. But now, this writer muses hopefully,  the setting up of this rape support service for the women who need it could prove to be "The nail in the coffin for Rowling". The woman who's had so many death and rape threats, so many hate-filled messages from his "kinder, more caring" side of history for her blasphemous belief in truth and evidence, and daring to center the needs of vulnerable, marginalised and abused women, she said they could paper her ceiling with them.

“Cool” and “Badass” Censorship, Hate & Intimidation

At Edinburgh University, meanwhile, some more of the Moral Army's most fashionable and fash-friendly fundamentalists engage in an act of noble "activism" and end up garnering praise from activist influencers such as Greta Thunberg for their efforts. They decide that THE great human rights need of the moment is to prevent an audience of grown up women being able to watch a screening of a documentary, the content of which they claim is just too "dangerous" and "hate-filled" to even be seen in public.  

Adult Human Female features such “hatred-spreading” horrors as footage of women talking, including more of those dreaded older ones who are meant to be shrivelling up at home and shutting up now they're old and worthless, including actual lesbians who don’t have or want to sleep with people with penises. They’re discussing women's current equal rights legislation and how it clashes with the aims of the genderist movement.

In the film, they'll be uttering such terrifying blasphemies and spreading hatreds such as "There are only two sexes", “Sex matters politically for women” "Isn't ‘gender’ just stereotypes?" "Women's current legal rights matter and we need to discuss them", "Lesbians are same-sex attracted women" and "Yes, of course there's a clash of rights if we're having our rights, spaces and words removed without consent and being intimidated and threatened to silence. us, can we talk about this please?"

Definitely not, no. Equality and freedoms are for everyone. Just not women who know their rights and speak out, or anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

To prevent such atrocities being spoken, the displays of human rights activism from the “be kind” “inclusive” crew include  young black-masked male activists towering over older women trying to look as intimidating as possible and, in one case, a somewhat older male "leader", proclaiming loudly and angrily that he IS a woman before spitting in a female filmgoer's face.

This is all a totally "cool" and "badass" look, according to young Dylan, one of the protestors who identifies as male, had her breasts removed at 18, and says her middle aged mother "hates TERFS" (aka other women) even more than she does.

Outside, 20-something would-be Green politician and she/her Ruth gleefully cheers on the censorship and intimidation, and showing those (yuk!) horrible grey haired women who's boss. She's "delighted", she says, at the prevention of the women seeing a film. "Excited for you", she said of the mob outside.

At the prospect of spitting in the faces of fellow citizens, presumably. I guess that sort of thing happens when hate mobs get enabled and whipped up by politicians into “excitement” and frenzies about “preventing” freedom of expression. What could possibly go wrong?

Letting Women Speak = "Platforming Harmful Rhetoric"

Meanwhile, in the Gender Army’s Youth Journalism wing and striking out for her own brand of righteousness over the truth,  Lucy Jackson, the pro-censorship editor of Edinburgh's The Student Paper magazine, proudly declares that she and her editorial team won't "platform" what she calls the "dangerous and harmful rhetoric" of the film either.

You know, "dangerous rhetoric" like women talking about their own legal rights, the need for single sex spaces, or having different belief frameworks about gender, like stereotypes being really bad.

Lucy appears to think that "freedom of expression" is both an important thing (correct, and a human right of all citizens) and that it is being specifically allowed in The Student Paper. Except it seems to be quite a narrow perspective which Lucy decrees can be "freely" expressed here—she has to agree with it 100%— and which type of students would as a result be permitted to speak

It's strange that Lucy and many of her cohorts appear to think "holding to account" and "dangerous" only applies to views expressed by other citizens that they might not agree with. Although I'm not sure how they would know what those views are or even who's expressing them if they can't sully themselves by even listening to them.

Oddly, she doesn’t, appear to favour any accountability at all for those spreading hateful rhetoric, propaganda and smears about the women she’s speaking of, who of course don’t get given the right of reply. Nor to recognise the dangerous authoritarianism she's expressing here. Or the very literal dangers real women are being put into by rhetoric like hers, including death and rape threats, reporting to employers for wrongthink and so on.

The problem with narrow-mindedness such as yours is it closes you off to the truth, Lucy. In this case, the truth that the women you’re happily demonising (without giving them the courtesy of right of reply, as I say) include women whose activism back in the day included fighting FOR the freedom of expression, gay and lesbian rights, the rights as a woman that young women like Lucy so very complacently take for granted. They are also committed to telling the truth, with evidence, which is infinitely more than “journalist” Lucy is doing here. Sure, as editor, she can decide what appears in her paper, but it’s not a personal blog, and to limit it to that extent is opinion, not journalism. That she should be happy to smear and demonise other people directly and lie about their views while shutting down any right of reply is an extremely odd and self-limiting approach for a would-be professional journalist. Clearly, curiosity is no longer part of that. Nor is an understanding, it appears, of the very fundamentals of Human Rights Legislation.

Nonetheless, and far more reasonably than I would, James Kirkup of the Spectator, himself a former editor of the Student Paper, has issued an open invitation to Lucy in the Spectator to discuss her reasoning.

He says:

I don’t edit anything anymore, but I know a man who does, and I hope he’ll take up my suggestion to ask Lucy Jackson to write here for The Spectator about why journalists shouldn’t report things they think are harmful.

A free society depends on journalism that puts uncomfortable facts and opinions in the public domain. I find my successors’ reluctance to agree with me uncomfortable, but I can’t preach respect for expression and tolerance for others’ views without seeking to make sure those views are heard and debated.

So, to Lucy Jackson and my successors at Edinburgh’s Student newspaper, young heirs to the Enlightenment with misjudged ideas about journalism, I make this offer: tell me – and Spectator readers –  why I’m wrong.

I wonder if she will take him up on it. She’s retweeted it, so I certainly hope so; but it could just be for snark, and I wouldn’t be surprised if her inner purity would not allow her to be sullied by permitting herself to to a publication of the centre-right.

Here It Is, Then: "The Film They Don't Want You To See"

Anyway, here's THE Big Scary Documentary, Adult Human Female, itself, for all those of you unafraid of the terrors it might unleash. I think as adults you're probably quite capable, but do bring support dogs, your mum, and a box of tissues to cry into just in case.

Trigger Warning: This Film Shows Women Talking About Their Own Reality And Experiences In A Way That Hyperbolic Viewers May Find Distressing.  My thoughts and prayers are with you all. Enjoy!

PS Thanks To The Observer: An Island Of Sanity In A Sea of Misogynist Enabling & Half-Information From the Supposedly “Progressive” Press

Yesterday, the Observer gave its verdict on Scotland and the Gender Reform issue in its Editorial. Balanced, fair, factual: a rarity for the “progressive” press these days, who are mostly, like the Independent, producing one-sided anti woman rubbish and repeating lobbyist Stonewall’s propagandist mantras, and as a result failing to demonstrate any balance in the narrative whatsoever. To the point they are often distorting the truth completely by actively failing to inform liberal and left of centre readers of any facts inconvenient to Stonewall’s preferred narrative No doubt there will be howls of protest from the “progressive” anti-woman lobby, but it’s essential that readers who are left of centre are told what’s going on, and from left wing media sources so it can’t just be easily dismissed. So thank you again, Observer. Much appreciated.

Since I’ve been talking about “tactics” and strategies and behaviours we’ve seen, and how close it is to what we see in abusive, coercive relationships, it does often strike me that one of the most useful things I’ve learned in recent years is about boundaries and how to recognise narcissists (neither of which I was much good at at all in my younger “kinder” more supplicant days: if only I had known). And it’s amazingly simple. THE single best and most useful test to root out a narcissist is what happens when you try to set a personal boundary or say NO to them. Try it: the reaction is always instructive, especially in close personal relationships, and always worth doing in the very early days. Be specific, set a boundary or say a clear NO to something they want or are trying to get (this isn’t about just disagreeing, although reactions to that are instructive too) and see what they do or say. It is very revealing of character.

What do I mean by “What they want?” What kind of things do narcissists usually want?

• Their own agenda which MUST take priority; even, or perhaps especially, in your space. So in your home, your family, your life, your choices, with your friends, your group. In your classes at college, whatever. It’s the mother or friend who invites herself for Christmas or a holiday without checking if you have plans. It’s the friend who always tries to “persuade” you on every outing that what they want to do is best; the new dinner date who orders your meal for you, reacts to you saying you don’t like something by trying to “make you” like it because they do, or the dinner guest who bores your other guests senseless by regaling them with their pet theories/rants and always trying to turn any conversation back to that. The male who joins your online or in-person women’s group (say, your menopause or endometriosis or infertility group) and makes it all about them and their supposed female identity, even though their demands are entirely irrelevant to the wishes and material needs of the group, which they don’t share. It’s the “guest” who rearranges your home to their liking (“Oh, that old thing? I threw it,”) centres themselves on a family outing, the friend or relative who calls you and monologues for an hour without a pause for breath and never once checks themselves to ask “Is this a good time?” or “Hey, how are things with you?”

• Attention. They are “Special”, didn’t you know? You, Unworthy Serf, are in the presence of Greatness! Usually, you are cast as a bit player, a support act in their personal drama, which places them in the central, leading man or woman role. You do have purpose, but it’s to be subservient; you may be useful at times, but you’re primarily there (even in your own home or space) to serve their agenda. Selfish, self-absorbed, often pompous and arrogant, and oblivious to the needs or perspectives of those around them, they are number one at all times, and demand to be treated that way. Your needs? Don’t be stupid. They don’t exist and are of zero importance when a Person of Greatness is in the vicinity or has graced you with their glimmering presence. Don’t you know who they are?

• Recognition of their superiority. The entitlement is often enormous. Of course they are naturally superior to you and your worth is in their favour, of course your views or plans or wishes are naturally less worthy than theirs although they may concede that sometimes you may not be all wrong, of course you should be grateful they even acknowledged you at all, of course they are your intellectual superior (even if you are far better qualified, have demonstrably stronger critical thinking skills, know considerably more than they do, or are a bona fide expert) of course they know what’s best for you better than you do, of course there is nothing in the world that they don’t already know. You’ll often find they tend to assume they know better than you what you “really” think and feel as well. Who cares if it’s YOUR home, YOUR party, YOUR family, YOUR group, YOUR area of expertise? Or even YOUR sex, YOUR history and YOUR actual life experiences. It’s all about THEM. And you must recognise their greatness, or woe betide you. Basic etiquette? Please. That stuff’s just for the little people. Little people like you.

So how might they react, then, when you say “NO”?

Someone who isn’t a narcissist:

• Will be fine with it and relaxed about it. “Oh, okay, then, how about…” “Ah, right. What would you like to do instead?” “Oh, okay, no worries, that’s fine.”

• Might indicate surprise or being taken aback by your no at first if they’re on a roll, but generally will get over it quickly and respect your wishes. Some people just haven’t been told it very often in life or aren’t used to having to consider that others around them might have needs, but non-narcissists can soon learn to adjust to it, the way that children do. Accepting a no with grace is one of life’s great lessons.

• And yes, Accepts the no. Even if it saddens or annoys them (I’ve been lucky with my parents, but gawd, some of the things friends of mine have dealt with from theirs for years… always with the guilt-tripping). Tends to step back, adjust, accept, and leave it. Hell, they might even be grown up and reflect on why their expectation was different and how they might react differently in future to enjoy better relations with others.

• Apologises if appropriate. Sure they might get a bit carried away sometimes (often the case with ‘talkers’ or those who tend to take over and organise everything) but are usually self-aware enough to be embarrassed or contrite.. “Oops, did it again, didn’t I? Sorry. Got a wee bit carried away there.”

• Shrugs their shoulders and gets on with their life.

Someone who IS a narcissist:

• Completely ignores the no, and tries to find a way around the boundary.

• Remains wholly disinterested in your viewpoint, perspective or wishes, or your right to that no. Nope, they are going to get what they want somehow, by hook or by crook. That “no” cannot possibly be allowed to stand.

• Tries to persuade you (often in amusingly transparent ways, the way a child would) out of the specific boundary you’ve set. You say: “I’m busy that day, so no, I can’t, sorry.” They say: “Oh, but I’m sure you’ve got just that little bit of time for me/but this is the worst thing that’s ever happened to me/ a true friend or good wife/husband/child would drop everything and….” Always with the “Yeah, but, no, but …” “Oh, can I just add though? I understand that you’ve said no, BUT this is why it’s different this time/you must make an exception for me/this is why I’m right and you’re wrong and if you don’t do what I want you’re a bad person, I’ll make sure everyone knows it and I’ll guilt trip you forever.”

• Tries very hard to persuade you that your no, your boundary, is wrong, stupid, illogical, immoral and so on. “Pearl-clutching,” “Hysterical” “Triggered,” blah blah blah. Failing to remember that you didn’t come to them exactly; they invited themselves. Shoved in. And then decided to be spectacularly rude.

• Escalates quickly and angrily. If a mask tends to drop the minute you say no or try to set a boundary, and you get regaled with insults that make the other person’s true agenda, dislike and desires very, very clear indeed, you tend to be dealing either with a narcissist or someone with extremely poor personal skills.

• Demonstrates they have one rule for themselves and another rule for you. Standard rules that apply to mere plebs or “normies” don’t apply to them, of course; they are a superior and special person. Therefore, anyone who fails to hold them in the highest regard or in the manner with which they regard themselves has committed an act of enormous impertinence and must be punished for their wrongdoing. The wife or girlfriend who doesn’t do their “duty” of putting her views aside and unquestioningly supporting him at all times. The classmates who want to get a word in edgeways or get back to the point of the lesson where he is, guru-like, holding court, ignoring everyone in the room, and has been doing so for twenty-five minutes. The friend who won’t drop all their prior plans because SHE has decided she wants to do something, won’t go on her own, “needs you” there, and it’s just fantastic and “Shouldn’t your number one friend take priority? I’ve lowered myself a lot by hanging out with you, you know. You ought to be more grateful.”

• Often does so by attempting to gaslight, obfuscate, changing the boundaries, or the meanings of words. Words like no, or why your “No “ is really all about something else, a flaw in your character, or some strange agenda where you’re cast as the Bad Selfish Person, Evil Bigot, inferior person, birdbrained person who doesn’t know their own mind or place etc, etc, etc. Conveniently ignoring the fact that they may have bloody rude/downright insulting/poorly behaved/self-absorbed/quite spectacularly bad-mannered themselves.

• Continues trying to impose their world on your world by any means possible. and now with extra revenge for your slights/impertinence/failure to recognise their greatness. “I’m having an affair because my wife failed to unquestioningly support me.” “I’m going to complain to the bursar about each and every one of my classmates and their inferior intelligence and try and get their grades lowered and mine bumped up.” “Well, let me tell you, lovely new best friend, all the dirty secrets I know about HER because of how badly she’s treated me. Tell everyone you know!”

• Expresses how extremely offended they are, and crucially, treats it as a terrible affront that must be avenged. Their ego is so fragile, so paper thin, that they cannot lose, as if their entire sense of self will crumble, as it’s not strong or healthy enough to sustain someone saying no, a boundary, or scrutiny. Deflection is the only answer: a bit like Mermaids’ still unevidenced-claims about their phone lines having to close due to “abuse” from “bigots” while they were being investigated for their numerous safeguarding fails. “You know that so-called friend of mine? She REFUSED to have me for Christmas. Said she had other arrangements. I said she should drop them and she wouldn’t. I KNOW! It’s not like she has an elderly infirm mother or kid with special needs who will struggle with the disruption, or arranged something with that person I gravely insulted the other year, oh no.” Obviously, it will always be your fault. Despite the constant admiring gazing at the surface of self, self-reflection is not a narcissist’s forte. Anything other than centering them and getting their demands met is viewed as a selfish failure on your part.

• Simply cannot let it go. These are the people for whom your “No” is a narcissistic injury and for this reason, they can be dangerous. They can get vengeful. And trust me, narcissistic injury can last for years. They will often try to get others involved too, so as to attempt to increase the punishment. These are the people who won’t just grumble about it to themselves on their own time; they will often actively try to seek you out, try to get back into your space somehow. Can’t let you get away with THAT. Pointing you out and belittling you to others (and oh, if those others can be your supporters or friends or family, those closest to you or who you rely on, and undermine that, so much the better) is a depressingly common tactic used by those avenging for narcissistic injury. Desperately keep trying to have the final word or say, initiate recontact, get revenge and so on. They have to impose and find a way to “win” regardless. Their ego simply cannot take your no, and they will keep finding ways to try and get around any boundaries you set, to try to WIN. Again, this narcissistic, dysfunctional behaviour, because it belongs to a deeply dysfunctional or damaged personality with little capacity for self reflection, can last for many years. I mean, I’ve got someone in the background of my life who’s still trying it after 30, all because I said NO to him back in the days when I was a student.

• Projection and DARVO. Accuses you of precisely that which they do themselves, so that literally EVERYTHING you do will be framed and weaponised as an example of your evilness or your substandard ethics. You cannot defend yourself; they will do their best to make it impossible. All you can do is try to disengage and keep it that way.

So it isn’t a minor thing; unchecked narcissism and the inability to take no for an answer is a serious social infraction in all walks of life and reactions to “narcissistic injury” which involve “punishment” have serious consequences. Especially, as we’ve seen in the “gender debate”, when punishment for saying NO starts being embedded at an organisational or institutional level.“No” is a complete sentence, not the start of a negotiation. Psychologically healthy, mature, adults accept that, respect it and move on. And seriously? I’m highly unlikely to hold in high regard any person, politician or organisation that fails to respect my or others’ no and behaves in a handwavey, sneering or dismissive manner when I state my needs. Especially in my own bloody spaces or about my own bloody life. As I said in a previous post, the right to say NO a is a key part of personal and societal freedom. You don’t think I should be allowed to have that, that your agenda should naturally take precedence over my own? Tough. “No” is a key part of this fight. It IS a boundary issue, and the whining and stomping your feet, tantrums, belittling, trying to wear us down and get us to succumb, submit or shut up is not going to work. Those with narcissistic tendencies (and that includes not only crazy parents, ex partners, selfish friends and family members, but the gender fundamentalists, the reality-deniers, the gaslighters, the power-drunk politicians, control-freaks and pompously misogynist egotists of all stripes) are going to have to deal. We ain’t going nowhere. And sorry, but you won’t wear us down.

Every abuser needs enablers. The individuals who excuse or are blind to what is happening or who cannot read the signs, as well as those who actively support or cheer on abusers, particularly narcissistic ones, the flying monkeys who go and do their dirty work for them. Organisations who, on an institutional level, conspire with or otherwise embed or magnify, the supposed innocence of the perpetrator and the alleged guilt of victims, and help punish victims further. Enablers are those, too, who create false narratives to explain away their own complicity. This includes the media and academic organisations who then “teach” their false narrative to others and ensure it gets disseminated as widely as possible, making it harder and harder for targets to refute or even get a fair hearing.

Enablers are the family members, “friends” and acquaintances who’ll tell a woman that her abuser is lovely, a "great guy," that she's being “over the top”, that it's her, not him and ask her to examine herself and her shortcomings for blame whenever he treats her badly. Enablers are the ones who will prioritise the abuser at all times, whether it's the parent who's only glad their daughter's not one of those awful “man-haters” languishing on the shelf, and terrified she'll let go of the only man who's ever been prepared to take her on, or the “friend” who mysteriously makes herself available as a shoulder to cry on for him, to discuss his partners shortcomings, and “accidentally” sleeps with him at the same time, because obviously, that’s a woman’s job and all men deserve comfort. Enablers are the ones who say the target must have done something, like his friends who'll laugh along as he slags her off, discusses her sexually with them, demeans and puts her down, dehumanises her by calling her "it", talks about her weight or domestic imperfections, or her failures to be exactly like what he thinks a “real woman” should be.  And enablers will cover for him when he hurts her physically or worse.

Enablers are the organisations and corporates who share false information and statistics and spout mantras in lazy virtue-signalling attempts to be more “inclusive” - while barely noticing that in doing so they are contributing to gaslighting and often excluding those they are specifically set up to support. Enablers are former women’s organisations like the Fawcett Society who trip over themselves to prioritise the men who wish to be women, and punish or berate the women who point out, for instance, that you might want to question what “your lovely transwoman friend” might be doing in your menopause discussion group, and what he might be trying to gain from being there.

Enablers are the management teams of rape crisis centres, who ignore equality law, bypass basic safeguarding and checks in order to, for instance, promote to CEO males with no GRC, whose clear priority is their own validation and the opportunity to “re-educate” rape victims out of the “bigotry” of recognising maleness or not wanting to be around males as they recover from a male-induced trauma. Enablers are those in senior positions who gleefully exclude and berate and sometimes even abuse female rape victims for having the temerity to not want males in their therapy or trauma support groups, or stage flounces when rape victims say they have the right to choose the sex of their intimate post-trauma examiners.

Enablers are the fawning interviewers, including those upper middle class women who plump up the cushions, promote said CEOs, and join them in sneering loftily at those they view as the unenlightened, uneducated fishwives who correctly point out, "Erm, that's a man." The fishwives who know from experience what abusive, narcissistic frog-boiling behaviour looks like, when the supposedly intellectually superior interviewer seems oblivious. The smug self identifying “left wing” journalists who write pityingly of women who don’t see sex work as “empowering” and snigger at the sheer uncoolness of those they portray as grim-faced, past-it old pearl-clutchers still wanting to retain single sex spaces. The “pearl-clutchers” so tragically taken in by “Daily Mail scaremongering” and “manufactured culture wars”, who, unlike the overwhelmingly privileged who have never been on the sharp end of anything, would question if the ivory tower self-described “feminists” or theories in today’s Gender Studies departments have much of value or even basic intelligence to offer feminism or the women of this world, and can see that they are now busily engaged in promoting the very misogyny and patriarchal views they claim to be dismantling. (It helps, too, when enablers can gaslight themselves out of understanding what terms like misogyny and patriarchal actually mean out in the real world.)

Enablers are the politicians and political parties whose elected members spout false statistics and give misleading, manipulative information in public, berate and sneer at members of the public with far greater knowledge than themselves and claim such members of the public need “political re-education” unless they succumb to the same false narratives and mantras the politicians are pushing. Enablers are politicians who run away from discussion, ignore their constituents, tell lies about what they've been asked “on the doorstep”, or tell members of the public that what they want to discuss about their own lives is so heinously offensive that it "should not be talked about". Enablers are the governments that force through abuser’s charter legislation despite the glaring flaws, the misogyny, the implications and impacts, despite being advised against it by the EHRC, the clear lack of popularity with the majority of their public, or all the former supporters said government has managed to lose through its inexplicable focus on the demands of misogynist fetishist men being met or else.

Enablers are the politicians who actively prioritise the fetishes of white middle class men over disabled, working class women and women of colour but claim that in doing so they are 'highlighting the plight of the vulnerable," including on days specifically set out for the vulnerable, while those people are ignored and their issues and needs handwaved away. Enablers are those who gush about remembering the largely non-existent UK deaths of “trans victims of bigotry”** while largely staying silent about the WEEKLY deaths of UK women subject to misogynistic hatred and violence. Enablers are local councillors who proudly prioritise public allegiance to the sex stereotype flag representing the quasi religious belief system they have signed up to over the safety and needs of say, disabled and partially sighted road users, and who fail to bother doing impact assessments before painting over standard safety road markings with their beloved pink and blue. Or those, like Norwich council below, who proudly announce under the auspices of that Sex Stereotype Flag, that women who disagree with them about its tenets and who will not repeat their mantras are “extremists” who will “not be welcome” in their city.

Enablers are the newspaper editors who allow their staff to conduct bullying campaigns hounding out dissenting and experienced female columnists who write about facts relating to women that don't fit the false male-prioritising narrative they wish them to espouse. Those newspaper editors who allow immature, narcissistic male columnists free reign to spread misinformation and propaganda, launch  poorly informed, misogynist, ageist and lesbophobic social media campaigns against women (and teenage girls) in the public eye they don't like, and defame others without any censure whatsoever. Enablers are supposedly "left wing" media outlets which distort facts and refuse to report any stories where the facts don't fit their preferred narrative. When women of colour speak out against an obvious sex offender in their spa, for instance, enablers in the media outfits publish outraged stories about 'transphobia', the “right wing” and “moral panic”, yet omit to report the eventual reveal of the obvious sex offender as, well, an actual known sex offender. As for the women and girls... well, #Blacklivesmatter, but only male ones, of course, and only the right kind of Black lives, especially the kind who are good and obedient and will do what they're told by superior wealthy white liberals, for whom signalling one's virtue is infinitely more important than actually possessing any, or integrity either.

Enablers are the self righteous '“activists” who wilfully excuse attacks on vulnerable or marginalised people such as women in prison, and those that defend them in the name of “equality”, “diversity” and “kindness”, and especially those who fail utterly to call them out while themselves preaching kindness. Enablers are the employers and organisations who stand by and permit spiteful, jealous colleagues to hound women out of employment, and then apologise to the hounders. Enablers are the senior academics who issue syrupy, handwringing apologies to the “brightest and best” students at prestigious universities for the horror of allowing them to have to share a campus or be presented with an individual who robustly disagrees with them, or whose views they may find challenging.

Enablers are the tech companies who systematically ban women from expressing their views about their own legal rights or reality, allow bullies to publish women's home addresses in order that crowds can gather outside their homes, or the police can be sent to visit and “check their thinking”, while allowing paedophiles, misogynists and rape-fantasists to spout hatred and freely indulge porn-driven, often violent sexual fantasies on their platforms. Enablers are the 'unions' a and supposed "socialists" who choose to support the privileged student hounders of employees rather than the employees themselves. Enablers are the largely white, wealthy publishing and media class who gleefully sign “open letter” denunciations against women who speak of facts and evidence, and convince themselves their ignorance means they're both superior and “kind”. Enablers are those who organise "Women's Prizes" for writing to redress a balance, then promote male writers of violent, regressive misogyny as “women”, only to complain they're being “bullied by nasty people” when other women point out what they're doing. Enablers are the chairpeople of writers’ unions and their acolytes, who excuse and minimise mass hatred , propaganda and misinformation campaigns, lies and violent threats against those they envy or dislike, say nothing about putrid misogynistic hate campaigns or the attack on freedom of expression, and then pretend they are themselves the victims when others call them out.

Enablers are the celebrities and others who ignore and push under the carpet multiple violent threats, including death and rape threats, by claiming these are "consequences" that should be expected for a woman not agreeing she is a second class citizen and for answering back in a way a man or his handmaiden doesn't like. Enablers are the people who angrily defend such disparity for headpats and seem to truly believe that they are being good people. Well, I'm sure those citizens who participated in the naming torture, drowning, burning and hanging of elderly female neighbours they didn't like in the craze to seek out witches thought they were being “goodly” too. I’ve no doubt those who cheered on the persecution and murders of their fellow humans in the name of their country’s “return to greatness” thought they were being good and righteous, as did those who dutifully reported wrongthinkers to the secret police to get them sent to gulags or be tortured in prisons. The students clutching Mao's Little Red Book when beating and murdering their teachers in the pursuit of Cultural Revolution: I'm sure they imagined they were being The Good People too.

Why does it matter? Because every abuser needs enablers to absolve themselves of responsibility, to make excuses for them, to allow them to continue their abusive behaviour unchecked. People with abusive intent will seek out and feed off those who allow it, and there are depressingly plenty ready to jump into that role feet first, eyes shining with the glory of their own saintliness. But they’re allowing themselves to become accomplices; willingly complicit in campaigns of hate, falsehood, abuse and punishment, happily helping dismantle other peoples’ fundamental human rights and basic democratic process, while often seemingly believing they’re doing the opposite. This has made entire systems dysfunctional, made prevention impossible, dragged out the time abuse and poor behaviour has continued and people have been hurt. Enabling is dysfunctional behaviour in itself, allowing poison to get spread at every level. Abusers’ gonna abuse, as they say, but it’s the systems and blocks we have in place to STOP them that make all the difference.  It's never kind or righteous to be a stranger to truth and integrity. It’s morally feeble, supplicant, easily manipulated and led. Abusers everywhere delight in the support of those who choose to allow them to continue, and make no mistake; these people have been complicit. I can only hope they will all one day be held to account for what their failures and choice to turn a blind eye has done.

**This piece was written before the horrific murder of teenager Brianna Ghey by two teenage bullies, one of several teenage stabbing murders in the same week. Brianna’s was the first murder of a trans identifying person in the UK in four years. Sadly, gender zealots seemed quick to mysteriously apportion blame for the murder on adult women who believe sex is real, ignoring any questions around the prevalence of knife crime among teenagers, or that the police currently have an open mind around a motive.

“My Existence Isn’t An Ideology!”

How many times have we heard this plaintive and not-at-all-manipulative cry or something like it?

One of the things I’ve found most striking and alarming when speaking to (aka “being abused by”) gender-supremacists of varying degrees of adherence to their cause, is just how so many, younger proponents particularly, genuinely seem to be unable to distinguish between the concepts of “Belief” (and ideology) and “Fact”, both with regard to others’ way of thinking, and in terms of their own belief frameworks. It has become one of the greatest obstacles in tackling the disinformation and propaganda campaigns we are seeing so frequently in the gender wars; many seem to believe, like all religious crusaders, that their “truth” is the ONLY truth, that it is somehow self-evidential despite the glaring lack of evidence, and many appear truly astonished that any alternative viewpoints or frameworks, even those that explain exactly the same phenomenon they use in their own arguments, could be even possible, let alone be considered to have any merit to them.

I mean, MY life and experiences as an actual woman isn’t an “ideology” either, nor is the verifiable fact that I am physically, biologically female, given I was born with a female reproductive system, my chromosomes are XX, and I made it from childhood to adulthood. My pretty well backed-up-by-evidence assertion that I personally, as those who know me would attest, am not a set of stereotypically “feminine” personality traits isn’t an “ideology” either, but apparently, it’s been decreed that a set of stereotypically “feminine” personality traits is what a woman is, and is a “fact” so immutable, so set in stone, so “known by everyone,” that it isn’t up for question and never has been.

Women who don’t call themselves "trans “ or “non binary” and who don’t, in defiance of those who’ve decided to give us the label “cis”, happily agree that we fit comfortably into such stereotypes ,don’t even exist, apparently. We are not possible. We do not compute. Which is strange when feminists and womens’ rights activists have been defying that “feminine” stereotype and pointing out the evidence that it bears no relation to female reality for well over a century now.

What Is An “Ideology”? How Does It Differ From Fact? How Does It Relate To Belief?

Examples of FACTS:

And yes, I know I’m largely preaching to the converted here, but just in case…

• Fact: Human Beings are a sexually dimorphic species which is based, like most other species, on reproductive systems and, in humans, the capacity for production of small or large gametes. A small number of human beings have what are known as DSDs - physical disorders of sexual development affecting primarily the reproductive organs. None of these represent additional sexes and most, in biological terms, arise from either the male or female pathway. There is no third gamete.

• Fact: Sometimes people with DSDs are referred to as “intersex”, although many with these conditions view this term as outdated.

• Fact: Many societies historically have developed “rules” around the expected behaviour, supposedly “natural personalities” likes, and dislikes, and social roles of biological males and females, although these have often differed across societies and eras. The extent to which this are “natural” to the sexes is often debated. These rules or boxes have become, in some societies and belief frameworks, for example, 2nd wave feminism, known as “gender”.

• Fact: People in various societies and eras have often rebelled against those expectations, “failed” to meet them in various ways or been punished for their non-adherence.

• Fact: Different people in society have different views, ideas and belief frameworks as to what this means, if it is a problem and why/why not, and what the solution is to this. These include but are not limited to feminists, so-called “GC” people (who are often feminists), gender and queer theorists, and patriarchs, or traditionalists.

• Fact: The “rules” and “gender” boxes set by society, and whether or not a person fulfils them is wholly unrelated to whether or not they have a DSD. So-called “intersex” conditions (physical) are not related to discussions of “gender” or what is known by some of the above groups as “trans identities”.

Examples of IDEOLOGY (aka Belief Frameworks, or a particular set of ideas, theories and beliefs)

Ideologies are belief frameworks. They may arise around (some) facts, although sometimes don’t require them at all. Many base their ideologies almost entirely on feelings. Religious ideologies are often built on what unexplained phenomena “mean” as well as a desire for order in society. About, for example, what we see or experience in life means, what we can extrapolate from any facts we observe, and how we think we should live as a result of them. Often, people treat ideologies as doctrine, particularly in the case of religions, but they are not the same as facts, although they may have some of their roots in them. They’re ‘explanations’ and frameworks. Crucially, ideologies built even around some of the THE SAME FACTS may clash substantially. For instance, these three different ideological perspectives just around sex and gender, and there will be others people have individually, which are variants.

Belief Framework/Ideology: PATRIARCHY

“The fact that humans are a dimorphic species with physical differences between the sexes means that the male sex is “naturally” more dominant in character and the female sex is “naturally” more subservient. Not only is the way that nature or God intended things to be—which we can tell because male bodies are stronger and more powerful, and female bodies are smaller and produce the babies— this clearly means that an ideal society must reflect that, that it is “meant” to be. Men should be in charge and run society; women should be subservient, support, have the children and run the home. Men are the default human; women are the support. Power should rest in the hands of males, and pass down through the male line, which women will provide for him. It is the natural job of women to know their place in society, to attract him sexually, to have the children and look after males, and in turn, males will provide for them and ensure the passing down of his name through the male line. A woman becomes a man’s possession on marriage. Everyone should be heterosexual. As this is what God or nature planned for society, we must strive to uphold this, and force, punish, change or remove anyone who threatens it or fails to fulfil these roles.”

Belief Framework/Ideology: 2nd Wave FEMINISM/”Women’s Lib”

“The patriarchal belief framework is wrong. Although humans are a sexually dimorphic species and it is indeed true that males are larger and stronger than females and females are the ones who have the babies, this is no reason for women to be “naturally” subjugated, or men to consider themselves their natural superiors, or owners. The male sex has merely been taught that it is to be dominant and that women are a subservient class, and have acted accordingly, as we can see from how women are and have been treated in society historically and globally. This is wrong and unjust. We know women aren’t ‘naturally’ subservient; it is a ploy to maintain male power in society by the patriarchy. (We also recognise that these ideals impact males who fail to ‘fit’ the patriarchal ideal, although they are not our prime concern here. except in terms of saying that we believe boys should NOT be taught that they are to be dominant or that we exist to serve them). We deliberately centre women, as we believe that continuing to prioritise males before ourselves at all times feeds and sustains patriarchal ideals. We do not agree to prioritise males or that our job is to centre them. We want liberation from the restrictions of patriarchal ideals, the freedom to be who we are as people instead of subjugated as “feminine” and inferior, to vote, to be educated, to own our own property, to work, to earn our own money, not to have to marry, not to be considered property of males, to have power in society, to not be tied to the home because of our children, to destroy the idea that male power and dominance is ‘natural’.

No, we are not naturally subservient, but as we are physically smaller and the ones who have the babies, the reality is men are often continuing to use violence to suppress us and enforce patriarchal ideals and male power. Societally enforced sex stereotypes about what women (and men) “naturally” are and should be, which we will refer to as “gender”, is one of the main tools which the patriarchy uses to keep women, female people, subjugated in their place and has been disseminated throughout our culture through religions etc. “Gender”, the idea that women and men “naturally” have certain personality traits, likes and dislikes is the enemy, is biological essentialism, a tool of patriarchy for male dominance, which should be dismantled, leaving us all free to be who we really are as human beings rather than restricted by such “gender” boxes. Gender is a prison, today’s“gender identity” is a nonsense which feeds into patriarchal ideas and reifies them. The full range of human personality traits should not be assigned to Blue and Pink “Male” and “Female” boxes at all. They are just human traits. “Male” and “Female” are bodies, not traits. Misogyny has, throughout history, and as continues to be demonstrated globally and culturally, shown itself as hatred and denigration of the female sex, who are treated as second class citizens, often as male property. It must be resisted and not given power."

Belief Framework/Ideology (GENDER IDENTITY THEORY):

“Gender is in fact far more important than sex. Sex has NO bearing on who a person is and their experiences whatsoever, and it’s “biologically essentialist” to claim that biology has any impact on human lives at all. And it’s not true that human beings are sexually dimorphic. There are more than two sexes—we know this because intersex (DSDs) exist, proving that sex is a spectrum. Human beings aren’t born “male” or “female”— these are merely concepts that are assigned by society at birth. Male and female are ideas, essences, consisting of society’s ideas of what male and female are in terms of personality, likes, dislikes, activities, clothes, and so on., that are imposed on newborns.

But not everyone fits this according to their sex. You don’t have to have a “male” body to be male or a “female” body to be truly female inside. You can be a male with a vagina, a female with a penis. Male and female are merely inner feelings, identities, that we will call “gender identity”. Someone with a “male” gender identity will tend to have “male” traits and interests, for example, they are dominant, aggressive, scientifically-minded, someone with a “female” gender identity will be more soft and submissive and be interested in traditionally female things, like homemaking and clothes.

Your body has nothing to do with this, and you will be treated in life as the “gender” you appear to be, except by transphobes, who are evil, rightwing bigoted people who believe in stopping you being who you truly are. Now, most people, who we will call “cis” (‘on the same side of’) happily fulfil the social roles that society sets for their sex. Thus, MOST women are comfortable with “femininity” and are naturally submissive, and MOST men with “masculinity” and are naturally dominant.

If you don’t fit with your “assignment at birth” you are what we call “non-binary” (you don’t fit into the binary of sex) or you may well be trans, where you have the wrongly sexed brain for your body, and should be affirmed as the opposite sex, your “true self” for vital health reasons, ideally medicalised so you can be in the “correct” body. If you aren’t, you’re likely to commit suicide.

There are clues to whether you’re the wrong sex for your body in terms of your personalities, likes, dislikes, the toys and activities you chose as children. “Cis” women are some of the most privileged people in our society, and are privileged over trans women, whose womanhood they try to police. Trans men are also privileged over trans women. Misogyny is about hating one gender over the other, prioritising masculine people over feminine ones, and trans women are some of the most oppressed people in our society. “Cis” women who do not include trans women in their feminism or do not agree that they are women, are hateful bigots, misogynists, pro-patriarchy, and enacting a kind of apartheid with their “single sex spaces” and so on. They are akin to white supremacists. Trans women are often more “woman” than they are."

When Does An Ideological Or Theoretical Framework Become, Or Start Behaving, More Like A Religion?

Everyone who strongly believes in anything can become “religious” about it in terms of how they behave. I mean, if you believe strongly in something and become convinced of its truth, why wouldn’t you stand up for it and fight for it? We all have belief frameworks, sets of values, that are often positive. And some religions, for instance, when not taken to extremes, can be positive and bring great comfort to their believers. But there are particular behavioural signs that an ideology has become fundamentalist and religious in nature.

• Faith and belief in and adherence to its tenets and “rules” become more important than any facts that might back them up. The demonstration of faith in the ideology itself becomes a central measurement of your moral purity.

• Your loyalty to the “faith” or “team” becomes blind and based on it merely being your “side” rather than whether or not what your “side” believes or is saying is actually factual, truthful or ethical. (In religions, how strongly you can retain your faith is often THE crucial thing.) We see this in current polarised political discourse, where your “goodness” is judged on whether or not you’re a Remainer or a Brexiteer (by both sides), whether something is considered “left” or “right wing” based solely on the “team” who currently seems to mainly support it, even if that may have been different in the past, whether you were for Yes or No in the Scottish Referendum.

• You start to believe those who don’t share your beliefs exactly or question them are “lesser” or perhaps '“unchosen” people. You may extrapolate from that that these are people who deserve fewer rights than others, deserve punishment, or are not even fully to be counted as human. This is where ideologies can begin to be extremely problematic with regard to diversity (the genuine kind, not just the word), inclusion in society, equality laws in widely diverse societies, and the fundamental human rights of all citizens, particularly the freedoms of belief (which includes the right NOT to believe) and expression without punishment.

• Your belief framework develops catechisms and slogans that have to be repeated by members, often to show allegiance.

When Do Followers Or The Tenets Of Any Ideology Or Religion Start Behaving In Ways Which Could Be Described As “Cultlike”?

• When they become authoritarian and controlling. #NoDebate is an authoritarian stance. The demands that everyone repeat mantras (“Trans women are women, Trans men are men, non-binary identities or valid”) enforce pronouns, or be punished for instance, or the manipulative faux wide-eyed “checking” technique we often see “Of course, you’ll be including trans women in that, won’t you?” Thought policing, “checking thinking”, going through people’s tweets for signs of “impure” thought and even non-approved “likes” is authoritarian, abusive and controlling behaviour, and fundamentally opposed to the human right of freedom of belief. Reporting people to authorities for being deemed to have (perfectly legal, rational) “wrongthink” or being in a group that does. Witness the above example this week, a sign from the Institute of Contemporary Music in London. Scary stuff. Many genderists, despite ICMP taking it down for being “clunky” after complaints, seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable if not righteous approach. No it isn't. It’s totalitarian. It’s cultlike. (It’s also factually wrong).

• When no dissent, discussion or questioning is permitted at all regarding the belief framework—especially any facts or statistics that conflict with the framework. Active suppression of anyone who questions, suppression or censorship of alternate sources of information. Demonisation of those who may provide it for you, attempts at discreditation of source, “Don’t read anything by this person, she’s problematic,” messages are common, as if moral purity might be sullied by reading or hearing something from an alternative source. Opportunities to see or even engage with alternate viewpoints are actively removed. See #NoDebate, no platforming, protesting against discussions. See the censorship in UK libraries, bookshops and in academic institutions. See, for instance, the furore over Helen Joyce’s appearance at Cambridge. (And if you wish to watch the video of her discussion, which went ahead, notice when the banging and attempts to drown her out by gender extremists intensify. When she is talking about child sterilisation.) Note the number of people on the “genderist side” (including politicians and influencers) who don’t appear to have bothered reading the independent Cass Review. Note the media organisations who have failed to report on it, despite the seriousness of its findings, to ensure the knowledge of it doesn’t cross their readers’ paths.

• When there is punishment for dissent or perceived lack of purity. Tenets must be adhered to exactly, or else, and you can be sure there will be adherents obsessively checking your every utterance for purity, going through your tweets, your social media likes and so on for signs of heresy. And punishments can be severe, even violent; social ostracism, loss of employment, violent threats and abuse. This can be for people within and without the “group”. Fear begins to rule. See the ICMP notice above. How safe would you feel if you were a woman with gender atheist views in the above institution? Or when being threatened by crowds of masked men at marches for having a meeting about womens’ rights, or being told you should be “punched”, or should “choke on my big trans cock” or, as per the words of a “genderfuck” identifying PhD student at the LSE’s Gender Studies department in front of his nodding, smiling, superiors, be threatened with a knife against your throat? (the department that was also home to Mermaids paedophile trustee Jacob Breslow, incidentally).

• Dissenters are silenced, demonised, dehumanised ridiculed, cut off. Hatred of them is encouraged. They are to be treated as “bad people” and dehumanised and it’s considered not only perfectly acceptable to abuse them, it’s sometimes considered to be righteous, a demonstration of loyalty or adherence to the faith. See reactions to JK Rowling (eg by Pink News)—and reactions to people who’ve stood up for JK Rowling (eg Gillian Philip) or Kathleen Stock, who’ve been effectively cast out and widely defamed because of it, as will anyone who dares to question publicly what has happened to them. See Owen Jones’s public mocking (to his million Twitter followers) of individual gender critical women and, in one case, a teenage girl. See defamatory claims about longstanding gay and lesbian rights activists being “funded by the American evangelical far right”, or the ageist smears about the appearance and age of a number of women who literally (to reclaim that word) got Owen the rights he now enjoys.

• Adherents are encouraged to cut off from family or friends or to “watch who they’re talking to” in favour of members of the group. “We are your new family” they'll say. "Join your new glitter family. And don't tell your parents; they're the enemy."  Older adults encouraging especially young people and kids to disengage from their families is a Big Red Flag for abusive and cultlike behaviour.

• When reality and facts become distorted or denied, history rewritten, when “reality” becomes only the newly created one, divorced from facts, the "truth" of the believers, but not the truth. Now many young people appear to be being taught that "trans people got gay people their rights" that "a trans woman threw the first brick at Stonewall", there’s denial that lesbian and gay rights were ever a "thing" that existed outside the trans identities that were added to the LGB in the UK in 2015. "Trans and nonbinary people have existed for millennia" (no, not using that specific belief framework), "intersex proves that sex isn't binary" (no, DSDs don't do that), nobody ever questioned gender stereotypes before gender identity theory (well, duh! Feminism?!), former gay rights advocates and women's rights activists and feminists either didn't exist or their activism was all a cunning ploy by them along to hate on trans people and they were all upper class white colonialists anyway, so... Yeah, right. You get the idea.

• No “leaving” of the group is possible without punishment. Apostates are treated appallingly, shunned. See again how detransitioners are treated, often by old transactivist friends who told them, falsely, that transitioning would solve all their problems. When it didn't, and they were additionally left with irreversible bodily changes that they hated, support disintegrates, they are ignored and their voices silenced, or they are overtly mocked. So much for "being your true self." So much for “Be kind.”

• "Call out"culture and chastened individuals being encouraged to atone for their sins - see “hostage videos” a la Rose McGowan, who atoned and promised to "do better" when she had been publicly yelled at for talking about her rape experiences... by a transwoman who turned out to be a sex offender. This “public atoning” demand (“Do better”) is the kind of thing that cults do.

Those interested in common “cult” behaviours may like to take a look at (former cult member and cult expert) Stephen Hassan’s BITE model, as well as the famous Robert Jay Lifton’s Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, which highlights the following indicators. I’m not sure genderists have Mystical Manipulation, quite, but otherwise, it’s pretty much everything ticked here. Especially the “sacred science which must not be questioned even though it’s not factual” and “dispensing of existence” which, not only is used in a DARVO-esque way constantly, means nobody who has different lived experiences are considered to “exist” or matter at all.

• Milieu Control.

• Mystical Manipulation.

• Demand for Purity.

• Confession.

• Sacred Science

• Loading the Language.

• Doctrine over person.

• Dispensing of existence.

“What About You Though? GCs Are A Cult!”

Oh, blah. I’m sure we’ve all seen plenty of attempts by genderists to claim this. But in general, in terms of behaviour from your average “GC” person, even on hellholes like Twitter—no, there is little evidence of that. Especially as “GC” is actually the position of the majority of the population if you dig down into the specifics of what GCs actually believe. (Lying about this is yet another cult feature of the gender fundamentalist movement).

Of course, within any political grouping made up of numerous diverse people, you may find examples of extremists who behave in similar controlling or “purity-policing” ways you see above, but there are numerous ways in which the vast majority of “The GCs”, feminists (or any other group of people with similar ideological frameworks and belief system) are quite obviously NOT displaying cult-like behaviours at all. That’s like saying “People who believe in gay rights are a cult” or “People who vote Labour are a cult” or “People who vote Conservative are a cult”or “People who don’t believe in God are a cult.” It’s about the behaviour.

• Despite accusations that we are “policing womanhood” and “behaving like white supremacists and creating apartheid” when we try to maintain the boundaries against male people in circumstances that we had to have against male people in certain circumstances because of the fact that sexual offenders are over 98% male, regardless of identity, the fact that “trans women” statistically show the same crime types and rates as other males, and 80% of victims are biological females, “GCs” tend not to take an authoritarian stance. Boundaries in intimate situations aren’t authoritarian. Women saying no isn’t authoritarian. Nobody is saying those who identify as transwomen shouldn’t be free to dress how they like, believe what they want, live freely, live free from abuse, be treated with respect, have the same human rights as everyone else. They just don’t get to dismantle ours, or demand to be centred in a demographic they don’t belong to, all differences denied, and push us and our needs aside .because they’re, literally, not the same sex as us. Facts, even uncomfortable ones or ones that disagree with you, aren’t “authoritarianism.” Other people having rights and needs too isn’t “authoritarianism.”

• Generally, you’ll see “The GCs” will openly discuss with those who disagree, are largely happy to and have on numerous occasions called for public and OPEN debate. We are virtually always refused on “No debate” grounds, opponents will pull out at the last minute from invited or planned discussions (eg Katie Montgomerie, Grace Lavery), refuse to be interviewed in the same space as a GC person (eg Mermaids, Paris Lees) or make spurious claims that merely being exposed to discussion of the issues at all will make the genderist opponent “unsafe” (usually framed as “a genocidal discussion about my existence” while completely ignoring that those wicked GC women may feel exactly the same, but given they’re only women, nobody gives a damn about their feelings or right to existence, or is expected to care).

• “The GCs” regardless of political persuasion, tend to champion the human right to freedom of belief and expression, Articles 9 & 10 of the Human Rights Act. There have been several court cases already on the GC side which have focused on this very issue; Miller vs the College of Policing, and Forstater vs CGD Europe, for instance. Again, the many invitations to genderist opponents to public debates and discussions also refute any claim that this tactic goes both ways. Contrast this with the approach that only THEIR views must be expressed and every other view on sex and gender, despite its factual and evidenced nature, is “bigoted” and must be suppressed as a sort of moral imperative. Also see the tactics I explained in my last post about the Strategy we’re seeing used against us. I don’t think removing rights from over half the population, many unwitting, behind closed doors without ANY discussion, scrutiny or consent, and demonising and lying about anyone who complains shows respect for the fundamentals of human rights in any way. Moral? Ethical? I don’t think so.

• Although “The GCs” will openly disagree with others who oppose them , there have been NO attempts made by “GCs” to actively silence anyone rather invitations to debate and discuss. Disagreement, even vociferous disagreement, and asking for debate specifically, is not “silencing” or “cancellation”. This, as we know, does NOT happen the other way round where the concerted efforts to officially“deplatform” and punish , demonise, flounce and/or report anyone who disagrees with them or who is deemed “GC” or a “TERF” are notable, from Germaine Greer, to Julie Bindel to the many concerted, organised campaigns to destroy mainly womens’ livelihoods and attempts to actively punish them and hold them up as “evil” for even expressing views ON THEIR OWN CURRENT LEGAL RIGHTS: Rachel Rooney, Gillian Phillip, Jess de Wahls, Jenny Lindsay, Jo Phoenix, Rosie Kay, Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, JK Rowling et al. Proponents actually appear to think this blatantly misogynist and suppressive activity is “righteous activism” and carry it out with religious zeal.

• A notable lack of the kind of language obfuscation or manipulation/goalpost moving which genderists use as a matter of course. Many prominent “GCs” tend to present facts, statistics, analysis, from verifiable and multiple sources. Genderists tend to employ hyperbole, emotional manipulation, and seem rarely able to produce evidence or statistics or understand what makes something verifiable, or to be able to pin down definitions. This is likely why so many genderists refuse to go head to head with “GC” people in public discussion. On the rare occasions when this has happened, they’ve usually embarrassed themselves. For instance, listen to this excruciating interview with genderist Sally Hines, versus Kathleen Stock, all the way back in 2018, and just compare each for clarity.

So-called “GCs” are predominantly gender ideology atheists. Like other religious atheists , our “belief” usually primarily consists of “non-belief” in the tenets or framework of the prevailing ideology.

Non-belief in a religious or any other belief framework is not a “cult”, particularly when that belief has many verifiable facts backing it up. It is not a “cult” not to share the belief that the earth is flat. It is not a “cult” to believe that gravity exists. It is not a “cult” not to believe in the existence of fairies, not to believe there’s a man with a white beard in the sky called God who created the Earth. It is not a “cult” not to believe in Scientology or Thetans. It is not a “cult” to disagree with David Icke that the world is literally populated by lizards in the guise of powerful people. And it is not a “cult” to disagree with the idea that “womanhood” is not a material reality of a sexed body and all that entails, but a set of regressively stereotyped characteristics, and that any man can be a woman just by saying so.

“Gender critical” people base their belief framework on the fact that there are two sexes, and human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. We don’t believe that “gender” is more materially important than sex (historical and global statistics will back this up), and any who are feminists (many of us) will not agree with those following a more patriarchal framework, even in opposition to genderists, that sex is innately connected to stereotypes of “gendered” pink/blue behaviours. Thus, feminist GCs will be horrified at the thought that being female is supposed to mean you are naturally submissive, or that if you don’t want to wear dresses and makeup, if you don’t do “girly”, then you must “really” be male inside. It’s an approach many have fought against all their lives.

The demand that all GC feminist women have just developed these beliefs to "hate on" trans people, and must abandon all we’ve fought for and many of our lifelong values and beliefs, to just roll over and concede to a belief framework we know is untrue, authoritarian, deeply misogynistic and often homophobic, is an ideological position that many of us are NEVER going to submit to, I’m afraid.

In the long run, cults and ideologies not based on fact will always fail, and genderists, I believe, will ultimately fail, although given the hold on public institutions and discourse currently, I really couldn’t say when. But you simply cannot keep denying truth and fact, the even now mountain of evidence against your claims, and suppressing people for ever; you're only doing that because you KNOW your facts don't stand up. You can't rewrite reality and truth and demand everyone sees the world as you want despite the evidence of their own eyes; the real world doesn't work like that. The backlash is already growing. And in the end the truth, not your ideology, will win.

At the moment, I’m really trying to put together, in my mind as much as anything, a clear picture of the tactics and strategy we’re seeing used against us again and again and again. It was actually one of the very first things I noticed about this supposed “human rights” movement about six or seven years ago that showed me immediately that something was very “up” here and that it wasn’t quite what it was purporting to be. It was authoritarian and sexist. It was telling lies about people and things I knew weren’t true. This wasn’t the new gay rights, and it didn’t seem to care much about either truth OR equality.

There are a lot of very manipulative, controlling and sometimes downright abusive tactics being used. Now, why should a genuine civil rights movement require any of those tactics and be spending its time and focus behaving like your common or garden domestic or sexual abuser or narcissistic control freak? And why on earth should we be expected to meekly submit?

For anyone who has ever been in an abusive or coercive relationship, there are certain steps in the relationship, ones all about CONTROL, that will probably be familiar to you.

• Abuser/Controller does bad or abusive thing to someone they want to control for their own selfish ends.

• If victim complains, abuser will deny and lie about it to anyone that will listen and spread their version of events

• Victim will be demonised for speaking out, using familiar DARVO tactics. The abuse will be framed as “their own fault”, they will be accused of lying and often, they will be framed as the aggressor themselves.

• If the authorities intervene, they will either be used manipulatively to increase the abuse at an institutional level, or they will themselves be criticised and undermined if they fail to follow what the abuser wants, so either way the victim knows they have no protection.

• The use of powerful and much-listened to influencers to spread the word about the abuser’s point of view, validate them as “the good guy” and how they are a victim in this situation, or to help them to maintain silence. The bigger the power of the influencing force, the better.

• Wherever possible, a situation will then be engineered where the victim gets punished publicly, which not only crushes them for good, thus compounding the original abuse, but serves as a public warning to any others who may cross the abuser’s path.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out so many times in various situations, that we should be able to recognise it by now: Savile, for one. We saw it with R. Kelly. We saw it with Weinstein. Sometimes those who behave like this get found out and caught out in the end, but so often they don’t, or not til years later.

There seem to be an ordinate number of people and organisations involved on the gender fundamentalist side in the “gender wars” who use the tactics Once you see the pattern, I’m afraid, you can’t unsee it. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that so many of the voices on the gender critical side of the argument, Jo Rowling and Rosie Duffield, for instance, have themselves been victims of domestic abuse and can spot the red flags immediately.

The Disinformation Campaign

In the last week, as one of several elements of what looks almost certainly like an organised and co-ordinated disinformation campaign around the main evidence-based gender critical talking points— you may have noticed the sudden attempts to refute and undermine the findings of the Cass Review, as well as the false narratives and fact-free celeb-supported defences currently being put out by Mermaids to try to disguise their Charity Commission investigation, all by stunning coincidence in the same week that the Chair of Stonewall turned up on the BBC claiming he wants to take the debate off Twitter (I bet you do, Iain)—it’s the turn of the Equality Act itself. Apparently, new PM Rishi Sunak’s stated plan to uphold the Equality Act 2010 as it stands and clarify that yes, that includes women too and sex being a thing, is a “horrendous Tory attack on trans rights.” So says Jeremy Corbyn, Sadiq Khan, Eddie Izzard and other of the left’s great and not at all hugely misogynistic luminaries

I would think that politicians who were around at the inception of the Equality Act (such as Jeremy) ought to be familiar with its original terms. It seems strange, then, that they appear not to have a problem with A Certain Organisation Beginning With S (and others) and their now obvious campaign to change the terms and protections of the Act, particularly as they relate to women , under the radar and without public knowledge, particularly the consent or knowledge of most of those whose rights they are aiming to dismantle, or any parliamentary oversight. Not to mention that the tactics used do seem uncomfortably familiar.

Step 1: Develop Desire To Compel “TWAW”, To Replace “Gender Reassignment” (and in many cases “Sex”) In Law With “Gender Identity” And To Remove Any Pesky Protections For Women That Stand In The Way Of That.

Given it’s the constant mantra, we all know that getting “Trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary identities are valid” into law as some sort of undisputable and enforcable religious doctrine, has always been one of the key aims of the gender fundamentalist movement. We also know that Stonewall, once it decided to hitch its wagon to transactivism in 2015 and pretty much abandon any focus on lesbian and gay rights, specifically stated that it wanted womens’ right to single sex spaces removed from the Equality Act, where it is currently enshrined as an exception for dignity, privacy and where it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” Such as, y’know, dignity and privacy and not being raped, a fate that the victims of are overwhelmingly (over 80%) female. But nah. They wanted it gone. No debate.

See the excerpt below, fourth point down, from Stonewall’s original recommendations for “trans equality” to the Womens & Equalities Select Committee in 2015. Women not to be so equal after all. Not to mention some of the recommendations about “transphobic hate crimes”, the use of the media, and self ID.

Step 2: Lie About The Equality Act & The Law And Disseminate The Lie On The Ground

Hey, but who needs fusty old politicians and boring old democracy, consensus or parliamentary process when you can just do whatever you’ve decided you want yourself anyway? After all, said Ruth Hunt, Stonewall’s CEO at the time, “We are not a democratic organisation.”

So former gay rights charity Stonewall, who were one of the main disseminators in the UK, with their Stonewall Champions program in almost every institution advising on “LGBT Equality” got what they called “ahead” of the law. They decided, in all the information they provided in their training, to deprioritise (and sometimes complete remove) sex as a protected characteristic, make out that it had been replaced by “gender” or “gender identity” in law ( it hasn’t at all) and advise organisations, including local councils, arts organisations, universities, the NHS, the police, the prison service, even the civil service, to “update” their practices, to replace sex with “gender identity” (you will often see this being the only option in questionnaires and so on, with sex nowhere to be seen. The legal challenge over Census data ). Usually leaving out women and specifically any rights that were based on biological sex, including the single sex spaces exemption, and claim that the law now says that all toilets etc should be “gender neutral”, for example and get them to enforce it.

(Examples of the questions and guidance still required to get onto their Champions List for 2023 have been dug out by Conservatives for Women. Now, I am not a Conservative or Conservative voter, but CFW have done good work here).

This, as Allison Bailey put it, is “Stonewall Law”, not “THE Law,” prioritises gender ideology and centering trans issues often to the direct detriment of those of other protected characteristics. As Akua Reindorf pointed out in the University of Essex case, organisations following Stonewall’s version of the law could actually find themselves with discrimination, particularly sex discrimination, suits as a result. It’s not equality. And. It’s. Not. The. Law.

• If you’re interested in more of Stonewall’s tactics and approach, do listen to the Nolan Investigates Stonewall Podcast on BBC Sounds if you haven’t already. It’s a bit brash in style and a few things have moved on since it aired, but it’ll give you a pretty good idea of what’s been going on.

• Stonewall is not the only organisation involved in enforcing this particular ideological position. The inexplicably not-yet-disgraced Mermaids provided training, and there are various other organisations who’ve been providing “advice” in schools, much of it focused on promoting what is often a deeply sexist and often homophobic ideology full of sex stereotypes, boundary-flouting and pseudoscience, all wrapped up in a pink and blue bow as “progressive education”. Get ‘em young, eh, and pretend that beliefs are facts? Not at all cultish. Here’s one Twitter user’s experience.

• Not to mention the infamous Dentons Report, of course (discussion of it here by the Spectator’s James Kirkup). There are several key strategies involved which are seriously manipulative, not least the drive towards removing parental consent for what could be serious and irreversible medical interventions, but there is also this, for instance:

Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: ‘Tie your campaign to more popular reform.’

For example:

‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’

No kidding. Because most people don’t actually support claiming that a man is a woman just because he says he is, and that women and girls should have no right to single sex spaces. So in other words, the strategy is manipulate the public into thinking this is like gay rights. Forced teaming. Why should this need to be ‘hidden’ from the public if it’s all above board and simply a case of basic human rights? Why should I support anyone who uses manipulative tactics like this?

Step 3: Demonise All Opposition

We’ve all seen years of evidence now, demonising and lying about all the women who say "Hang on a minute, what? We need to discuss this..." No matter who they are, no matter their history, or previous activism, no matter what they’ve done in their life, no matter if someone with half a brain could easily see it’s totally illogical to claim they’ve suddenly become the complete opposite to who they’ve been their entire life, no matter their actual beliefs or political affiliations, nope. “These are the worst and most evil people in the world and all good people should HATE, shame and punish them.”

Whether it’s the absurd and libellous yet widely disseminated claim that longstanding lesbian rights activists are being paid by the American alt-right, the vicious, misogynistic and entirely propagandist hate campaign against JK Rowling (supported by people whom, without her, would genuinely not have acting careers, given their clear lack of acting talent), the frequent middle class “activist” campaigns to destroy womens’ livelihoods, report them to their employers, with menaces, for not agreeing that some men are women just like them, for questioning the ideology even in the smallest way, to destroy their lives for it. See Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, Jess de Wahls, Rachel Rooney, Gillian Phillip, Rosie Kay, and the many others who have been less high profile, who have had their livelihoods threatened by people who claim that by targeting women in this way, they’re somehow being righteous.

Here, for instance is “Lord” Michael Cashman (pretentiously) cheering on a disgustingly defamatory statement about Trans author Helen Joyce, falsely claiming she was “celebrating” the murder of three gay men. Is Michael exempt from the Nolan Principles? Why is defamation of this level considered okay? AND PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY BELIEVING IT. This has direct impacts on the person they are falsely accusing. Do people who actually care about equality, human rights and fairness cheer on stuff like this?

Then there’s the deplatforming, such as of Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and others. The threats and constant campaigning against MP Rosie Duffield, a former victim of domestic violence, to expel her from the Labour Party for refusing to agree that 60 year old Izzard’s misogynistic, stereotyped version of “girlhood” —he can move back into higher-paid “boyhood” by just taking his high heels off apparently—entitles him to demand any woman call him “she”, and any woman who doesn’t should “Get into the 21st Century" and be treated as a bigoted old hag. Despite many of us being considerably younger than Eddie.

Several senior members of the Labour Party, and pretty much all its youth wing, meanwhile, accuse these women of “hate-speech” and women’s and LGB groups that have a different viewpoint and discuss the issues, the misogyny, the homophobia, such as A Woman’s Place (set up by trade unionists) and the LGB Alliance (set up by several former gay activists, including many former Stonewall activists and supporters) are smeared by them as “hate groups”. Several MPs have happily spread defamations about them and demanded their “re-education” for having opinions about women’s rights that, until extremely recently were considered to be a bastion of left wing and progressive thought. The unions have sided with the abusers.

And then there are the threats. The death threats, the rape threats. The violence. The threats to beat women up in the street. All documented, as we know, and looking and sounding almost exactly like they come from violent male abusers. which, to be fair, they do, don’t they?

Then of course you have arch misogynist and self identifying “socialist” Billy Bragg intimating that these, often left wing women with long histories of activism, are somehow akin to genocidal Nazis for not agreeing to do what men like him tell them. Owen Jones, the Grauniad’s resident woman-hater, not only bullying at least one woman out of her job at the Guardian for having thoughts he disapproves of, but continually allowed to froth away with his misinformation and hatred, and then various supposedly “progressive” men in the public eye claiming that the vile abuse of these women standing up for their OWN current legal rights, can somehow be described as “accountability”. We didn’t sufficiently know our place. “She made me do it.” “Look what you made me do.” It’s subjugation.

The gleeful hatred of and demonisation of so-called TERFS or “GCs” (including by several batshit ivory tower “feminists” and many in the media), who are in fact just women who don’t believe men can change sex or in the regressively sexist notion woman is a personality type made up of sex stereotypes or a sexualised outfit, now becomes extremely edgy and fashionable among people who imagine such abuse of others is the clearest sign of being “left wing” and “progressive”. Left wing men especially seem to enjoy the chance to hate on the women, and supposedly “liberal” women to try to desperately prove that they’re good people and they’re not like those evil bitter ignorant old harridans who don’t know anything and didn’t actually get them their rights, oh no.

Step 4: When Official Bodies Notice & Try To Correct, Make Big Fuss and Act Like The Victim

When an official body who is actually in charge of these things, like the EHRC or the government, for instance, notices that in fact, incorrect information about UK law has been widely disseminated, that there is obvious confusion, so clarifies that the Equality Act hasn't in fact been changed to remove sex, sex hasn’t been replaced the nebulous, sex-stereotype-based “gender identity” and the exception about single sex spaces is still very much in existence, pitch a gigantic howling fit, claim you’re being victimised, and get as many media outlets and "progressive" politicians as you can to claim that "bigots" are trying to “remove fundamental human rights from innocent marginalised trans people”. Despite this being factually untrue, but hey, you can now lay it all at the door of the evil Tories and the American Evangelical Far Right. Which all the women who object are, according to you. They are the aggressors. It’s DARVO. And no, Eddie, this isn’t what was said. He didn’t say he wanted this at all.

Additionally, you make sure that you spread the word that biggest victims of violence in the world are trans people, THE most marginalised and hated minority, by using “hate crime incident” figures from the police. And the figures sound terrible, until you realise that “hate crime incidents” including someone saying something you didn’t like on Twitter, women pointing out men are male, etc. There is no comparison with anyone else in society. Like women for instance.

Nobody mentions women’s human rights in all this, or the original terms of the Equality Act. Women, who in the UK alone are murdered at a rate of one every three days (compared with zero trans murders here in over three years now). Women’s basic human rights, that were only little more than a decade ago included in the Equality Act (included from their original appearance in the Sex Discrimination Act) are now to be viewed as “bigotry”. And we know what happens to bigots. They get everything they deserve, right?

Step 5: Get Influential People To Show Support & Spread The Word Of Your Victimhood

And this is where you gather as much support as you can from the great and the good, and spread the word. And of course, if the people involved are influential (like politicians, say, or the journalists on the “side” you’ve always agreed with, and the organisations “your side” has always supported, and a few celebs known for being “on the right side of history”) then you’re laughing. NOBODY is going to believe those horrible women now, are they? Ugh, what awful bigots and terrible people they must be, and of course, when they talk about “sex based rights” in the Equality Act, they’re lying. (Women are always lying, right? Jumped up bitches). They’re such bad people they want to take rights away from the most marginal, vulnerable people in our society! What utter cows! Burn the witches!

Here’s London mayor Sadiq Khan, for instance, spreading the misinformation from arch-misogynists Pink News.

Again, nobody ever mentions womens’ rights now, except the Tories. Mentioning women’s rights or “biology” at all becomes widely known as a “transphobic dog-whistle”. “Progressive” newspaper reports talk about “trans rights” and women’s “controversial views” but never that this in reality is simply a fight by WOMEN to RETAIN their CURRENT legal rights, that haven’t actually been changed in law, and that many women don’t even realise yet are under threat.

Step 6: Make It A Fait Accompli That The Law Will Be Changed In Your Favour

Hello Keir, Hello Sadiq, Hello Nadia, Hello Stella, Hello Cashman, Hello Labour! “We’re not like those nasty Tories,” they’ll say, without proper scrutiny and discussion. “We’re going to make misgendering a hate crime, we’re going to bring in Self-ID, and if we do make misogyny a hate crime, we’ll make sure (with our Stonewall friends’ help, won’t we, Stella?) that we’ll pretend men who identify as women can suffer from it.”

Inclusivity? Diversity? Equality? Treating women as human? #WomensRightsAreHumanRights? Understanding what misogyny (hatred against women) looks like, and how it manifests and always has? That it’s about CONTROL AND SUBJUGATION? Punishment for not “knowing your place?” What do you think is happening in Iran, in Afghanistan and why?

Apparently not. There’s only ONE group’s rights that matter, in a supposedly “diverse” society and it’s not women. Women are evil unless they enthusiastically agree to subjugate their own needs and cheer on the dismantling of their own legal rights. Everyone else in society, apart from trans identifying people, can be disenfranchised and have their fundamental human rights—like freedom of belief, freedom of association, freedom from violence and abuse— stamped all over. No-one matters except one group.

Step 7: Ensure Your Victims Are Publicly Punished

The final step. Labour are in power. They enact what they said they would. They put it into law. It is now literally against the law for women to object to their redefinition as “pink” personalities, to mention sex, to state reality, to object to the underhanded way their rights were removed without discussion, to have single sex spaces or services.

Women are thus subjugated“Put back” in their place. Males rule. The only people who matter as “women” are the male ones. Many of the gains of the last 50 years, lost. Women are what men say they are. They do not have a say, and they are not permitted boundaries. If they try to instigate them or say no, they will be punished.

The whole thing has been a power grab by mostly abusive, coercive male people who really, REALLY hate women. It’s been a wholly non-democratic, manipulative, misogynistic strategy to dismantle the rights of all the women in the country. But nobody in positions of power who could have done so chose to stop them. Job done.

Of the numerous lazy tropes and false narratives that do the rounds from the mouths of gender fundamentalists or the otherwise hard of thinking, this is the one I really hoped would start dying a death after recent Mermaid’s revelations.

Alas, nope. I really should’ve known. Every time. The lull of collective silence, like the tide going out, for just a day or two, before, whoosh, back it comes with full force, the tsunami of denialism, post after post, clearly copied and pasted from Mermaids’ instructions after they sent whatever SOS batsignal they clearly sent out to their acolytes, the shooting the messengers, the gaslighting, the deflection, the excuse-making, the enabling, the Owen Jones having his usual frothing “TERFS are evil” two-minute hate-rant. The usual Nadia Whittome Red Guard bandwagoning, the DARVO, the blaming, the reality-twisting, the lip quivering claims from Mermaids that they had to shut their phonelines down due to “abuse” which we’ve seen no evidence of whatsoever (rumour has it some of those manning the lines walked in disgust, but as we don’t know what actually happened for sure, don’t quote me on that).

And then the “of course it’s all the fault of nasty old TERFS, the evil bigoted right wing press and JK Rowling because they’re EVIL and have stopped all these poor young people getting help and being who they want to be.” And nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into this children’s charity who consistently resist scrutiny, encourage gender nonconforming children down completely unevidenced and irreversible medical pathways, and whose safeguarding is CONSISTENTLY so bloody appalling that on top of already being investigated by the Charities Commission for safeguarding breaches, they managed to INVITE at least one obvious paedophile into a powerful position as a trustee of their board.

But THAT isn’t worthy of comment or condemnation, certainly not.

It’s “culture war”, the lazy narrative goes, “whipped up by the Daily Fail and other right wing outlets.” It’s “Moral Panic.” “It’s the new Section 28.” It’s “Pearl-Clutching” by evil bigots.

No, it isn’t It’s CHILD SAFEGUARDING. It’s SCRUTINY. This is basic, basic stuff. And we’ve been here before in the UK, many times. But are the lessons ever learned?

Sadly, they are not.

So how do you know the difference? It’s really not that difficult

MORAL PANIC/PEARL CLUTCHING/”THE NEW SECTION 28”

Moral panic is unevidenced, largely irrational fear, that becomes wildly disproportionate, and usually based entirely on prejudice, on things that haven’t happened or won’t happen, often primarily as a result of resistance to change. Examples include the Salem witch-trials, McCarthyism and the Red Peril, fears of the corrupting influence of Rock n Roll or heavy metal music lyrics. Or thinking that the mere mentioning of gayness will turn everybody gay.

Pearl-clutching is about shock at something, usually something sexual, that falls outside a very limited kind of conservative Christian idea of morality. for example, finding the idea of adults having sex outside marriage or being same-sex attracted, or living together shocking, and being outraged about it on moral grounds. It often involves policing other people on solely moral grounds, wanting only “Good Christian values” to be taught and inculcated.

Moral panic also often has an undercurrent of censorship, for instance, not wanting young people to know or learn ANYTHING about sex in school, banning all showings of TV programmes or films or books or music, or wanting to ban any mention or discussion of homosexuality in schools a la Section 28, for fear that the mere mention of homosexuality would “turn kids gay’". Thought policing of “impure” or irreligious or “incorrect” thoughts would also fall into this category. The righteous of social justice thought police might, incidentally, want to think about this when they’re busy rounding up dissenters in their purity spirals or reporting to their employers or going through suspects’ tweets looking for “likes” they disapprove of.

“Moral Panic” isn’t:

• Questioning a prevailing narrative when there is considerable verifiable evidence of actual harms, or where the stated aims of the “narrative” are not in fact achieving what is claimed. That is called scrutiny. It isn’t about “morality and disgust” although it is often about “ethics, equality and fairness” under both current human rights and equalities legislation.

• Discussing potential harms, with evidence, of removing previously agreed or consensus-based boundaries or limits. Again, that is democracy, scrutiny and impact assessment. It isn’t “moral panic” to ask if impact assessments regarding the girls in their care have been done before schools unilaterally remove all single sex facilities, for instance, which could be indirectly discriminatory under Equality Law, and goes against agreed Building Regulations in schools.

• Whistleblowing when harms have been observed, the rules are being broken or established protocols have been flouted is not “moral panic.” Especially when it’s evidenced, and especially when it’s coming from several sources. How you treat whistleblowers is a good indication of your integrity and the strength of your principles and your commitments to standards, ethics—and safeguarding.

• Expecting what is taught in schools about sex and gender to be factual, evidenced and fair rather than ideological. That means no ‘pink and blue’ boxes, no sex discrimination by subject, no teaching that girls are there to be homemakers but boys leaders, and likewise, no claims that babies are “assigned male or female at birth”, that there are 300 “genders”, that a child can be “born in the wrong body” or that children who don’t play with the “correct” toys for their sex or like the “wrong” clothes or topics must therefore be trans and “really” the opposite sex. You can teach, as with religion, that some people believe this, but teaching it as fact when it’s belief and offering no alternative viewpoints for the same phenomena is the equivalent of indoctrination.

• Academic discussion and questioning of prevalent narratives in academia, questioning any monocultural approach in terms of theory, applying a materialist analysis to theory. That’s called academic vigour and debate. It should lead to robustness and better ideas and arguments, not whining that you heard “unsafe opinions” if someone disagreed with your pet theory.

• Knowing facts and statistics about rates of sexual assault against girls and women, the division of crime types as either victim or perpetrator between the sexes (naming things accurately is important for everyone ,both for fairness and to be able to address all effectively) , or the historical reasons why, for instance, single sex spaces exist in certain circumstances.

• Listening to women and girls about their experiences, of sexual assault and harassment, for instance, and taking them seriously, even (and I say this for those women who do the “Not All Women/ You don’t speak for me” schtick) if such experiences have not happened to you personally.

• Understanding the established principles and standards of safeguarding and prevention. It is not “moral panic” to recognise when breaches have occurred. Safeguarding protocols are well-established and are there to protect kids and young people. Many came about as a result of abuses and even murders of vulnerable kids. They are therefore not unevidenced. They are “lessons learned”. They are not the equivalent of “morality policing” for, for instance, religious or ideological reasons Anyone who tries to make out they are is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, to obfuscate for usually nefarious purposes. Or has been gaslit themselves into doing so.

CHILD SAFEGUARDING, WHISTLEBLOWING, SCRUTINY

• Safeguarding is a set of principles established BECAUSE of previous breaches where young people have been harmed, physically, emotionally and sexually abused or even killed. Anywhere where children and young people are, unfortunately, is going to be of interest to paedophiles. Anywhere where vulnerable children are is going to be even more appealing, and anywhere where the safeguarding is lax or the boundaries of the adults who are meant to protect vulnerable children are porous or where the adults are naive is going to attract predators like moths to a flame. Mermaids, a charity for gender questioning children and young people should know and understand these principles inside-out. They are required across the charity sector. Yet Mermaids has demonstrated again and again they either don’t know (unacceptable given what they do) or don’t care (which would be even more appalling on many levels, not least because actively and knowingly choosing to undermine child safeguarding protocols would suggest sinister motivations.) It is not “pearl clutching” to point out these breaches.

• Whistleblowing, where you know there have been breaches and you publicise or otherwise draw peoples’ attention to them is not something to be ignored. If something is failing, the powers that be, those that can and will do something about it, need to know about it. It is not “pearl-clutching” or “hysteria” to whistleblow, especially not where child safeguarding protocols are being ignored. It’s flagging up known and established possible harms. Worth remembering that one of the reasons that the Tavistock GIDS clinic has been closed is because of the evidence of the sheer number of individual whistleblowers. At least 10 went separately to Tavi board member and eventual whistleblower Dr. David Bell with their concerns, about fast-tracking children down medical pathways, about resistance to standard exploration of mental health issues presented, about the enabling of homophobic attitudes . GIDS’ managements’ treatment of their child safeguarding lead, Sonia Appleby, actively preventing doing her job when she tried to expose safeguarding problems, resulted in their having to pay her compensation of £20,000 in the resultant employment tribunal for actively preventing her carrying out her duties in this regard. A clinic. For vulnerable children. Where, it’s noted that the “politicisation” (and involvement of certain lobby groups) of these issues appears to be a big part of the reason why Sonia Appleby and David Bell were treated the way they were. What kind of people demonise whistleblowers? Is it “moral panic” or “pearl clutching” to have an issue with serious institutional failings where institutions are not following the protocols expected and agreed?

• Scrutiny, accountability and basic standards of behaviour is expected of all officials and organisations in public life (see the Nolan Principles, the Seven Principles of Public Life), which should be adhered to by ALL in public life including organisations and charities. That we are in a situation where many in public life (politicians of all parties for example) completely fail to uphold these standards is no excuse. It is not “moral panic” for members of the public to expect their representatives and public organisations to adhere to these basic, fair principles, or to object when they are not upheld, regardless of by whom or what their political affiliation is. The ideal of having standards of fairness and integrity is not a “right wing” concept. Mermaids have demonstrated on numerous occasions their lack of willingness to be scrutinised or to accept accountability. Remember documentary-maker Olly Lambert saying that they made false assertions in order to avoid being interviewed for the Trans Kids: We Need To Talk documentary and he had an easier time getting either side in Gaza to accept ‘the other side’ giving their point of view than he did Mermaids? If you have integrity to your arguments, you don’t need these deflection tactics. You’re adults, not children. Whining “they’re all being so meaaaaan” over and over again as per Mermaids’ claims about the phone line “abuse” to deflect from their own signing of an obvious paedophile up to their board is not the response of responsible adults. Arguments should be so solid they stand up for themselves: well argued, evidenced, solid, factual. But as we see time and time again, Mermaids’ “representatives” not only crumple under scrutiny on the rare occasions someone holds them to it, it’s usually to the point of utter embarrassment.

Perhaps one day, those who’ve been blindly following along with this narrative (Hello, Guardian, Hello Owen, Hello Nadia, Hello Greens/LGBTI Labour/LibDems, Hello Independent, hello, “academics”, hello “be kind” useful idiots thoughtfully stroking their beards while imagining themselves morally superior) and anyone who rushed to the kneejerk defence of Mermaids might like to start having a think about exactly what sort of person would like you to think that CHILD SAFEGUARDING and “MORAL PANIC” are one and the same thing and why, and who in particular is likely to gain from their conflation in the above situations, what the impacts are likely to be and on whom.

But I’m really not seeing much evidence of intelligent thought, integrity or dot-joining at the moment from the usual suspects, so I won’t be holding my breath. All I know is that at SOME point, the tipping point will come. It just has to. But we need the Charity Commission and others in positions of power and influence to develop backbones. It’s already gone on far too long.

I don’t feel like I can even give it a week before my next post, as this latest revelation about Mermaids in the last day or so is SO beyond shocking. Except for those of us who have been watching all this for many years, joining dots, shouting about it, and have been demonised for our trouble, it isn’t actually that surprising. As anyone who understands how abusive gaslighters, propagandists and predators of all kinds, including sex offenders, operate, In Plain Sight and Going Big (aka The Big Lie) are known and very successful tactics to get people to allow you free rein to do whatever you want, remove opposition and boundaries, and normalise damaging beliefs and actions, including sexual abuse and violence. All they need are naive, stupid people with weak boundaries who don’t understand red flags or safeguarding principles, using them as enablers, footsoldiers and enforcers, et voila.

Enter Mermaids. Again. A charity for vulnerable children and young people demonstrating their incompetence once again, and complete lack of even the most basic safeguarding principles or, it now seems, any due diligence whatsoever.

So not only have we seen numerous safeguarding fails on their own forums, including poor data privacy for thousands of vulnerable kids and their families, the flouting of basic safeguarding principles like sending teen girls physically damaging breast binders behind their parents’ backs, directing young people to struck-off pill-pusher doctors the Webberleys to get puberty blockers, directing them to other forums for discussion where sexual predators have been known to lurk. Turns out they do no due diligence at all enabling known paedophiles to work for them in senior, influential positions.

The Latest Revelation: Jacob Breslow, Academic, Paedophile Apologist (At The Very Least) & Virulent Anti-Woman Activist. On board of Mermaids from July 2022. Now Resigned

Yesterday things went crazy, even from when I started writing this post. If you’ve missed any of it, you can find the detail of this person’s prior activities on Graham Linehan’s Substack here.

Suffice to say, Jacob Breslow, Associate Professor of Gender and Sexuality at LSE, who identifies as a “feminist”, is openly pro-paedophile and reserves his most virulent hatred for those women he calls “TERFS”. Often, it seems, because of their commitment to child safeguarding. Uh-huh.

Of course, many of the blue tick enablers are still trying to excuse Mermaids here for their absolutely shocking lack of even the most basic due diligence (Breslow’s activities were easily Googelable and come on, The Charity Commission is pretty clear about safeguarding protocols), and excuse their own lack of critical thinking, their own enabling behaviours, twist things around so in their tiny little uncritical minds it’s our and “the right wing media’s fault” for pointing out the massive obvious safeguarding loopholes with Mermaids that women have been shouting about for YEARS. Or the dot-joining we’ve all been doing FOR YEARS from information readily available in the public sphere about the obviously sinister nature of any ideological drive that explicitly seeks to dismantle boundaries, excuses paedophiles, treats all and any safeguarding as “bigotry” and “apartheid”. And demonises and lies about any potential opponents (so often the women who understand safeguarding) so successfully that it’s those who point out the issues who become publicly vilified, sent death and rape threats, lose jobs, get arrested, become social pariahs.

It’s notable too that so many of the women who first picked up on glaring red flags here were women who had previously experienced DV or CSA. The gaslighting tactics of the gender fundamentalist movement have been glaring and in play the whole time. The only astonishing thing is that more people didn’t pick it up; once you see it, you can’t unsee it, I’m afraid. It’s like one of those magic pictures.

Anyone gonna say sorry or “We were wrong?” I doubt it. Apologies to all those who have been unfairly vilified and lied about for trying to flag this all up would be very well deserved. But of course, they won’t be forthcoming from the many useful idiots who’ve been enabling all this at Mermaids and elsewhere, helping spread misinformation, smears and propaganda about those who were trying to raise the alarm. There are SO many of them who should have known better, many influential people, all of whom gleefully stepped on the bandwagon and ALLOWED this to continue as the evidence mounted up over the years. Journalists, academics, politicians, celebrities, organisations.

@FemmeLoves has been compiling an alphabetical list on Twitter. Please do check it out.

And to all these useful idiots: We told you. WE TOLD YOU. We are hopefully at the beginning of the end now, but it has taken FAR too long. How many kids have been damaged because of these people and orgs refusing to see? I’ve been aware of this stuff for around five years now, many campaigners much, much longer. We have always had plenty of evidence that something was amiss; and yet, so many people and organisations with the power to stop it have let it carry on, and decided to demonise and monster us instead. I can only hope history judges you, as it judges others who have ignored and demonised whistleblowers in the past. Because let’s face it, none of you have ever been really “kind”. Or demonstrated much intelligence either, for that matter.

Update: 25th November ‘22

Susie Green steps down (suddenly) as CEO of Mermaids

… and now we know why:

Update 2nd December ‘22

Formal Inquiry Launched Into Transgender Charity Mermaids (The Times)

The Charity Commission has launched a statutory inquiry into the transgender charity Mermaids after identifying concerns about its management.

The regulator said the inquiry — its most serious form of investigation — was triggered by “newly identified issues” around the youth charity’s “governance and management”.

UK Government Website

The inquiry, which opened on 28 November 2022, will examine:

• The administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees including its leadership and culture.

• Whether the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law; in particular whether they had sufficient oversight of the charity’s activities and compliance with its policies and procedures and in line with its charitable objects.

• Whether there has been any misconduct and/or mismanagement by the trustees.

It is the Commission’s policy, after it has concluded an inquiry, to publish a report detailing what issues the inquiry looked at, what actions were undertaken as part of the inquiry and what the outcomes were.

A useful thread of things the inquiry SHOULD be looking into, from Maya Forstater.

Hallelujah. FINALLY. What took you so long, Charity Commission? Child safety & women’s rights campaigners have been trying to flag this up to you for YEARS. Now, there is to be an investigation, prompted by journalists at the Daily Telegraph, who’ve been taking a look at Mermaids’ own forums, due to concerns about child safeguarding.

Trans Charity Mermaids Giving Teens Breast Binders Behind Parents’ Backs

Trans Charity Mermaids To Be Investigated By Charities Commission

The Times: Trans Youth Group Faces Scrutiny By Charities Commission

The Times: Trans Charity’s Chatroom For Children Condemned as Irresponsible Free-For-All

To which Mermaids have responded in their usual defensive way thus:

Mermaids response

These are the exact types of concerns that organisations like Transgender Trend have been shouting about, with evidence, for many years now, only to be rebuffed, demonised and ignored, with the help of the notable silence from the self identifying “progressive” media outlets who could and should have helped get the ball rolling on this scandal in terms of public awareness years ago.

I think Mermaids should do more than get in the sea. I think some of their management should be prosecuted, frankly. The reasons are numerous, but here are my big five.

1. Their CONSTANT Promotion of Regressively Sexist Stereotypes As Traits “Innate” To What Male and Female is, & Pushing That In Schools

Any indoctrinator worth their salt knows that “getting ‘em early” with whatever doctrine or belief system they wish to push and doing so with the help of “trusted adults” is a key part of getting an ideology embedded across society long-term. Mermaids have been no different. Along with their promotion of scientifically illiterate “Born In The Wrong Body” rhetoric, the idea that kids can somehow “Play With The Wrong Toys” for their sex, and that the mark of true maleness or femaleness is based on a bunch of regressively sexist sex stereotypes is what we see pushed consistently, although they of course deny this, despite the mountain of evidence.

“It’s not about sex stereotyping,” they and their acolytes will claim. Oh, really? Because here in one of their key training materials, they’re not attempting map the full, beautifully diverse range of human personality traits, likes, dislikes, on a scale of “girl” to “boy”, female to male at ALL, are they?

A few years ago, campaigner Michael Conroy, of Men At Work attended for himself a Mermaids training session… and asked the trainer some awkward questions. For those who are interested, these are his recordings of the whole session.

While it starts off okay (“We impose ‘pink/blue’ on boys and girls from birth” - yes, we do, or rather, a sexist society does), it become clear as the training goes on that it simply hasn’t occurred to these people that those limiting pink/blue categories of what makes a “girl” and what makes a “boy”, a woman or a man, could be a lot wider than they are promoting. They believe in those stereotypes. They don’t think they’re wrong or need challenging. No. They’re fine. It’s just that the kid doesn’t fit. It’s the kid who needs to change.

Even this week, one of their senior board members still seemed to think she was delivering some kind of clever “gotcha” when she posted this about the fact Maya Forstater founded anti pink-blue-toy group Let Toys Be Toys, claiming that she’d “changed.”

No, she hasn’t, Helen. You just don’t understand what Maya, Let Toys Be Toys and your other opponents have been and still are arguing. Never did.

Maya & LTBT argues that companies gendering toys in this way and saying that some toys are for girls and some toys are for boys restricts children and their freedoms. It also leads to sexists in general, especially the likes of Mermaids, claiming that any child who doesn’t play with the “correct” toys isn’t the “right” sex and is therefore transgender.

Mermaids are a prime example of an organisation suggesting that the toys kids’ play with are what ‘makes’ them girls and boys. It’s why EVERY SINGLE TIME a “trans child” is reported in the press, the most notable markers of their supposed transness is the failure to fit with exactly those ‘pink/blue’ stereotypes about what boys and girls should wear, play with or, be interested in. Some examples:

BBC: “I First Came Out As Trans Aged Eight” (2019)

Daily Mail: “Mother accused of “brainwashing”… but insists the youngster is happier living as a female” (2019)

'Dempsey has been gender non-conforming since the age of eighteen months old, basically since she was able to express herself. She always gravitated to dolls, dresses and sparkly objects,'

There are numerous other examples. Check out every “trans child” narrative you see reported in the press and media for yourself. The “played with the wrong toys” “wanted to wear the wrong clothes” element is always glaring.

But the truth is that a girl—who is a ‘girl’ purely because she is a young female in a sexually dimorphic species— a girl who plays with trucks and wants to climb trees is still a girl. A boy who wants to wear a pink tutu and get a Barbie is still 100% a boy. Because he was born and observed (no, not “assigned”) biologically male at birth; that he is a male and not a female runs through his DNA, and it will do so for as long as he lives.

“Boy” is not a “blue” personality trait, outfit or set of toys. “Girl” is not a “pink” personality trait, outfit or set of toys. Neither is “Man” and “Woman”. They’re body types in a sexually dimorphic species (and no, DSDs don’t “prove” that we’re not in any way. Show us the third gamete and you might have a point.)

The fact of a boy’s maleness has NOTHING whatsoever to do with personality traits, likes, dislikes or toys, although it will impact what a SEXIST, PATRIARCHAL society deems is okay and appropriate in terms of how it will “permit” him to be and behave. And that impacts on what it teaches him about “boy” and “man-ness”. What he’s allowed and not allowed to do, what he should aspire to. Or not. Likewise with girls and women. What society indoctrinates our kids with about this and their “roles” has big impacts down the line.

For that matter, a girl who wants to wear a pink tutu is also still a girl. And she’s not somehow “more girl” than one who doesn’t. A girl who wants to climb a tree, play with her truck, her Barbie AND wear her pink tutu is still a girl: it doesn’t make her “non-binary”. That would assume that “all normal girls” are “binary”. and into pink designated “girl” stuff only. A boy who wants to play with his truck AND his Barbie, AND climb a tree while wearing his pink tutu is… what? You guessed it, he’s still every bit A BOY. Why wouldn’t he be? Why is he “less boy?” if he wants to wear a pink tutu, or play with Barbie dolls, as Mermaid’s CEO Susie Green’s small son indeed did, much to the consternation of his (clearly homophobic) father? Susie Green details this herself in her infamous TED Talk, linked to below.

Susie Green Ted Talk: A Mother’s Story

These regressive ideas about “natural” girl and boyhood, are essentially what sent SG’s own child down the path to medicalisation, to puberty blockers, and then finally, to having his penis removed and “transitioning” to his supposedly “true self” at the age of 16, in Thailand. After which, the Thai government changed the law to prevent it happening again in one so young. Here’s Susie and a friend laughing about her child’s micropenis. Those puberty blockers had meant that it “didn’t give the surgeons much to work with.”

Another demonstration, too, of why puberty blockers aren’t exactly “just a pause button,” or irreversible, as is constantly claimed.

And who was making the rules about what’s “normal” and “allowed” for boys and girls here? The child, even if they do say “I think I’m really a girl, Mummy”? Sorry, I really don’t think so. SG’s child was desperately trying not to make the adults in his life angry, his father in particular. This shit is built on adult ideas of what “girl” and “boy” should mean. Wholly sexist, conservative, regressive ideas, with an undercurrent of homophobia, and of the type that most of us thought had gone out in the 1950s. “Girls”, in this ideology, are deemed to be “naturally” interested in homemaking, in softness, in fashion, in looking pretty, in pink, in dolls. So any girl who doesn’t fit that apparently moves away from being “ a proper girl”. Likewise, this ideology’s idea of a “proper boy” is one who is assertive, who plays with trucks and trains, climbs trees, likes fighting and so on. “A boy who doesn’t fit with that? Who wants to play with Barbies? Outrageous! He can’t be a real boy! Hide his toys!” (as SG did to her little boy so as not to anger his father who, as the talk makes clear, was clearly furious his son might be gay). And then put him on puberty blockers and castrate him to turn him into the ‘girl’ —and we know this from his supposedly ‘incorrect’ natural choice of toys— he must really be.

Why have we allowed these people to go into organisations all over the land including SCHOOLS, to push the idea that “girl” and “boy” “man” and “woman” are the limiting set of stereotypes THEY call “gender identity” as if those things are somehow innate and the terms “girl” and “boy” can’t possibly accommodate diversity and difference outside of those stereotypes? As if the “pink and blue” they CLAIM they’re opposing, are actually in reality innate?

Mermaids Training: Their Website

Transgender Trend on SG’s comments re: trans kids

Transgender Trend: Teaching Gender Ideology in Schools

While I agree with the Mermaids trainer’s initial assessment in the training that adults DO impose “pink and blue” on kids on the basis of their sex, I think most actual progressive people would see the solution to that being to FIGHT those stupid “pink blue” stereotypes and their association with what makes a girl and a boy. Not to do what Mermaids have been doing in recent years (they didn’t always, interestingly), which is then to assume the stereotype is correct and the child who doesn’t conform is therefore somehow “the wrong sex” or was “born in the wrong body.” Because we all know what comes next.

2. Their Pushing Of Child Medicalisation - Despite Scientific Illiteracy, Lack of Knowledge And Categorically NOT Being “Experts” In Any Way

Notable during Mermaids’ ill-conceived and spiteful court case to divest the LGB Alliance (a group who, despite the constant defamation and lies about them, are actually made up of veteran gay rights campaigners) of charity status was their “star” witnesses’ complete and rather astonishing lack of medical expertise, or even anything approximating curiosity.

It soon became clear that NONE of the witnesses appearing for Mermaids had even bothered to read the Interim Cass Review in full, for example. Here is lawyer and equality rights expert Akua Reindorf questioning Mermaids’ “star witness”, Paul “not an expert” Roberts of the LGBT+ Consortium, on the Cass Review & GIDS.

AR - now the Interim Cass Review. Have you read it?
PR - only in brief.
AR - you'll agree with me it's a devastating critique of the service
PR - not without having reread it
AR - you'll agree the service was closed because of it.PR - not sure.
AR - referring to staff reporting pressure to affirm. Do you see that? Also, diagnostic overshadowing, referred patients have complex needs, once trans diagnosis, no further attention to other mental health needs. Do you remember that.
PR - I only skim read it.

AR - complex interaction between sex & GI, societal pressure, etc. Do you remember reading that?
PR - only having skim read the report and its not my area of expertise.
AR - it's a bookmark for what's coming isn't it in the final review?

PR - Yes, apparently so.
AR - longer term f/u data is limited, including those who have received physical interventions. Including desistance, and detransition. Explains difference between the two. Truth appears to be that the numbers of regretters, desisters and detransitioners are simply not known.
PR - inaudible response
AR - we don't know how many people actual regret and are actually gay and lesbians
PR - I don't agree.
AR - Do you know how many there are?
PR - no.
AR - then you do agree with me.

Yes, the report by actual child paediatrics expert Dr. Hilary Cass, on GIDS, which was until its impending closure ON CHILD SAFEGUARDING GROUNDS, the only Gender Identity clinic in England. Don’t you find that peculiar, given that Mermaids’ entire focus is on childrens’ gender identity? They should know the Cass Report and its findings inside-out, surely, even if they want to robustly disagree? But no. All the other witnesses showed similar lack of curiosity or knowledge.

You can check out the transcripts on Tribunal Tweets’ substack for more.

Then there were the glaring discrepancies around Mermaids’ claim that “We are not medical experts and don’t give medical advice” (“What?” I hear you cry “IT consultants like Susie Green aren’t actual medical or child development experts? Surely not!” )

Now, SG didn’t testify in this case, but their Chairman of Trustees, Belinda Bell, did. Here she is being interviewed by Karen Monaghan KC, for LGBA:

BB - You are reducing sex to genitals, boys have penises and girls have vaginas. I'm not sure that is true. Raises intersex.
KM - a vanishingly small number.
BB - I don't have the data but I would dispute that assertion.

KM - I am putting these questions to you because you are Mermaids witness. Have we agreed that sex and gender are different things?
BB - yes I believe we can agree on that.
KM - let's discuss gender dysphoria. The easiest way to deal with it is through the Cass Review.

I'm sure you're aware of the Cass Review. Undertaken by NHS England, there has been an interim report by Dr. Cass.
BB - just to be absolutely clear, I am not a medical doctor.
KM - obviously
BB - the Cass Review is not in MM area. We do not do medical stuff, we don't treat dysphoria.
KM - MM supports youth with dysphoria, many of your participants are either referred to GIDS, or are on a medical pathway.
BB - again, we are not a medical organisation.
KM - Dr Cass criticisms of GIDS.
BB - many critical of GIDS inability to serve patients.

KM - Cass critical of many of the concepts, not so much the service capacity. Cass is exploring what gender dysphoria means. I'm exploring this because you said that is one of your areas of focus.
BB - some of our children have gender identity issues, some may have dysphoria.

KM - directing BB to witness statement, gender dysphoria is one of most important area of focus.
BB - yes.

So if they’re “not a medical organisation” as BB claims above, why is Susie Green listed as an advisor to WPATH and advising on distinctly medical-sounding protocols for them as she does here (where she appears to be advocating for reduced gatekeeping for medicalising kids)

If Mermaids are ‘not a medical organisation’, why have their forums been promoting struck-off gender doctors the Webberleys as contacts for puberty blockers? Why have they been coaching young people on what to say to get diagnosed as having gender dysphoria and therefore onto a medical pathway sooner? Why have they been sending children breast-binders behind their parents’ backs?

And why are parents all over the country being referred to Mermaids for advice on “gender diverse” young people as if they are “the experts” in some way?

Here’s a thread giving an example from the forums.

3. Their Homophobia

If the underlying theme of homophobia wasn’t already obvious enough from Susie Green and other gender zealots’ own comments, it came through thick and fast in their witnesses’ testimonies against the LGBA.

Being allowed to be solely same-sex attracted, particularly for girls, and to say so, is considered heinous bigotry now, going by the angry testimony of more of Mermaids’ star (male) witnesses & their (male) lawyer against the lesbian founders of LGBA. To the point this line of questioning left long-time lesbian activist and LGBA founder Kate Harris in tears, as documented in this Guardian report.

Do check out the testimonies of both Paul Roberts and John Nicholson to see examples of the lesbophobia both were displaying during the tribunal so far. Essentially, it appears that not being ‘open’ to dick (if attached to a self identifying male ‘lesbian’ ie heterosexual male) is unacceptable bigotry as far as they are concerned. “Anyone who identifies as a lesbian is a lesbian” is the take. Even if that person is a heterosexual male.

All of which made it very obvious exactly why a small organisation of gay rights activists like the LGBA, needs to exist and what the problem is with Mermaids and their ilk. (And let’s not forget that in the UK, trans issues were not force teamed with the LGB until as recently as 2015).

Not to mention the institutional homophobia already flagged up by numerous separate clinicians, the whistleblowers at the Tavistock GIDS clinic, whose approach was heavily influenced by Mermaids and others pushing gender identity ideology. Given that, according to clinicians, the majority (80%) of gender non-conforming young people referred to them turn out to be gay if left to their own devices, and that of the young female teens referred to them (a 4000% increase in the last decade) the majority are both same sex attracted and autistic, anyone not asking questions is guilty of both negligence and homophobia, as far as I’m concerned.

Tavistock Identity Clinic “Converting Gay Children”

Tavistock Clinic Putting Young Gay People At Risk By Treating Them As Trans

Much of this came out in the employment tribunal case of Sonia Appleby, GIDS child safeguarding lead, who won £20k compensation after being prevented from doing her job of child safeguarding by her employers. One of the key issues raised by both Sonia Appleby and the other whistleblowers was that homophobia was being enabled by the clinic’s approach to identity issues. It’s one of the main reasons the clinic has been closed.

4. Their Manipulation of Anxious Parents & Pushing Of Suicide Ideation – And It NOT Being Called Out By The Many Agencies & Organisations Who Should’ve Done So

“Better a trans daughter than a dead son.” is Mermaids’ and other genderists’ well worn blackmail technique.

Here was Transgender Trend’s assessment of ITV’s Butterfly, (publicity pic above) in which this was a key theme.

Telling parents (and kids who identify as trans) that they will kill themselves if not put on medical pathways as soon as possible, when there is NO evidence of this at all (in fact, the evidence shows that suicide rates are more likely to rise AFTER transition - because it doesn’t actually solve underlying problems, perhaps?) both increases suicide ideation (completely against Samaritans’ guidance) and is deeply manipulative and deeply unethical. But if you’re told the people pushing this are “the experts” (even though they aren’t) and you’re threatened that you will lose your child (either through suicide, or in other cases, have them removed from your care) if you don’t affirm, and you everyone telling you this, the pressure is on for parents—the main group of people with the potential to stand in the way of a child being medicalised— to comply.

“Better a trans daughter or son than a GAY son or lesbian daughter.” That is what Mermaids and many gender followers mean, let’s face it. And to think so many supposed gay and lesbian organisations and celebs are cheering this bullshit on, claiming non affirmation or any exploration at all is ‘conversion therapy.’ While supporting what I and many others believe is literal gay conversion therapy. And being in complete denial that that is what they’re doing, or that it’s somehow ‘different’. When we can all see, when it’s obvious from what they SAY, for god’s sake, that it really, really isn’t.

5. Their Lack of Ethics, Incompetence, Lack Of Self Awareness and Resistance To Scrutiny

So. Mermaids, who take public money and are a registered charity, remember, promote regressively sexist pink/blue sex stereotypes, throughout society, and in schools. With the help of misogynist fox-botherer and non-equalities expert Jolyon Maugham and his self serving vanity project The Good Law Project, they launched an ill-advised court case against the LGBA, not only because of their homophobia, but because, as the testimony makes clear, they saw LGBA’s questioning of their ideological position as a threat to their income.

Despite “not being medical experts” or child development specialist they give “medical” advice, send breast binders to teens without parental knowledge, and campaign for irreversible medical pathways for the people who do send kids down medical pathways based on the diagnosis - which is heavily influenced by Mermaids ideological position and material.

The numerous issues with their forum shows they seem oblivious to even basic child safeguarding protocols (particularly online, which I’d expect even “IT consultant” Susie Green to be aware of).

And Mermaids are in such a self-referencing, self-serving bubble, held up by fawning celebs who think they’re being edgy, that they actually don’t appear to realise how incompetent they look from the outside to most sane people. Their “expert witnesses” have made complete fools of them so far in the LGBA case, just as a few years ago, Mermaids’ Helen Islan’s case against transsexual Miranda Yardley accusing him of transphobia (yep) was thrown out of court by an incredulous judge (It was mainly reported in the Mail, but here is MY’s own account also).

Up until now, they’ve been largely resistant to scrutiny, buoyed as they’ve been by celebrity endorsements and that of the supposedly ‘progressive’ media. As this excellent Spiked report by journalist Jo Bartosch back in 2020 shows, it’s been a long time coming. Note the comments from film-maker Olly Lambert, making the film Trans Kids: It’s Time To Talk for Channel 4, about his experiences with Mermaids. And his comments about Hamas are not a joke. He genuinely did have to interview them for another documentary.

Like many others before me, I learned that Mermaids cannot tolerate any questioning of their methods or motives and will work hard to shut down any debate rather than enter into it and win support.

It was easier to get an interview with Hamas and the IDF than it was with Susie Green.

Do people who react like this sound like people you’d want to entrust your kids to? Let’s hope the Charity Commission’s upcoming investigation puts an end to all this. Nobody is above scrutiny. Especially not charities who purport to be “looking after” vulnerable kids.

There are two sides to the Freedom coin. One is the side that is allowed, finally, to do what has been desired, whatever has been prohibited in the past, whether it’s to speak freely and openly after an oppressive political regime, for example, or to vote in a democratic election, for same-sex couples to gain the legal and social recognition of civil partnerships and marriage, for gay men to be free to have mutually consensual sex with other men without facing persecution, prosecution or conversion therapy, for lesbians to not have their children taken away from them for their supposed “perversion’” or “correctively “ raped. For women to be able to earn and keep their own money, to divorce or have sex outside marriage without social opprobrium, to gain an education, for reproductive choice and autonomy over their own bodies, the choice over whether or not to keep a pregnancy—or a child born out of wedlock. Or indeed, we may find ourselves gloriously free to read a previously banned book, say, or watch a film once prohibited for supposedly “blasphemous” content.

The right to say YES, to give consent, is a freedom that opens up a previously closed, limited and oppressive world. It gives us choices, experiences, routes that we may not have had the chance to live before.

But YES is not Freedom’s only component, and although there are some topics where public may happen to give a resounding YES collectively on an issue, or we may do for ourselves as private individuals, WE DO NOT GET TO CONSENT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS, particularly not in intimate boundary, highly personal or sexual matters.

And especially not when we either haven’t even bothered to ask those others who’d be impacted for their feelings or views, or have decided to ignore that there are in fact many voices very clearly, very loudly, telling us NO.

Freedom is not just a matter of being free to say YES. And if we don’t have permission to say NO, we really don’t have freedom at all.

If we never have the option to say NO, we are not in fact living in the wonderful liberated paradise that the boundary-free seem to imagine is the ideal. Rather, we are in a wholly coercive, gaslighty environment with authoritarian, controlling individuals who want to decide for us, what our boundaries are permitted to be. Who will attempt to persuade us and guilt trip us out of having boundaries, like every gaslighting creep who’s ever lived. Who essentially want us to do whatever THEY have decided to consent to. These are not people who are interested in other people’s freedoms or our basic rights or views or feelings at all; simply their own desire to do what they want (or have been gaslit to want), their own personal consent and choice to say yes, which they wish to FORCE others to comply with, against their will. As if we were ignorant children, for whom they will make the decisions, because they know what’s best for us, thank you very much.

And so we turn to the inevitable individuals who pops up whenever the Wicked Evil GenderCriticals (TM) say that we think the single sex spaces and services that are allowed for in the UK Equality Act are there for a reason, and that we’d like to retain them, please, or at least get a chance to talk about it before they dismantle them under the radar as has been attempted to do (see James Kirkup’s Spectator article on the Denton’s Report for the tactics).

“Cis woman here: you don’t speak for me.”

The usual refrain. I’m sure we’re all familiar, just as I’m sure the suffragettes were familiar with their female opponents who said THEY personally were fine not to have the vote, or those women who castigated 70s and 80s women’s libbers for not shaving their legs, accusing them of being man-haters, un-fun, “ugly’” or “jealous of us ‘cause we’re prettier.” (Btw, always good to see the ancient anti-feminist accusations of the Jim Davidson era now revived by such women who seem to imagine it’s an “ultra-feminist” thing to do, alongside such modern-day trans luminaries as India “Cervix ” Willoughby who thinks women who don’t shave their legs are “disgusting” and all feminists are man-hating Nazis).

What could be more New Model Feminist than castigating other women on social media for her lack of “kindness” if she dares to say NO to having her rights dismantled? Or calling her a “right wing bigot” or “thick” for saying that of course all the evidence shows that sex is real and matters more than gender stereotypes, or she wants to retain single sex spaces, the meaning of the word “woman” or “lesbian”, would like impact assessments done and discussion with regard to potential changes to the law, or thinks she and other women should be allowed things of their own if they wish to sometimes without being morally obligated and policed to ensure they include some men, even in things like menopause and endometriosis groups? The New Model Feminist also provides fuel for those misogynist men who love to use her as an example. “See, other, much nicer women, the good girls who we like, don’t seem to mind. So why on earth should you?”

The lack of consent issue was raised by one attendee at last weekend’s Brighton Let Women Speak event to a young female gender activist who had come there to protest the women. “Fuck your consent,” was the retort, as if that’s any kind of gotcha, or that means the matter is therefore closed. As Simone de Beauvoir pointed out:

“The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed” ― Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

The matter isn’t closed, and never will be. And don’t forget, MY lack of consent is not stopping you doing anything. If you’re happy with mixed-sex toilets, for instance, feel free to use the many gender neutral facilities or use the men’s and allow women and girls who’ve told you they’d like their own facilities to retain them. Win-win, surely (except you’ll need to ask the men for their consent, of course). You can used mixed sex changing facilities if you want, or, hey, why not campaign to allow yourself into mixed sex or male hospital wards, or rape crisis and DV centres, or prisons, or… “Oh, what’s that you say? ““Not a situation I’d ever find myself in?” Hmm. How very interesting.

The woman who jumps on others saying NO, is not in fact demonstrating that she’s freer and more liberal, open or intelligent than the many women she’s chosen to sneer at. She’s succumbed to a “pick me” mentality of looking for male approval, that she’s not the kind of woman who doesn’t put put men first at all times, proving only that she’s a pro-patriarchy authoritarian who doesn’t respect other women’s human rights and freedoms, doesn’t see why they need them (“I’m all right, Jack”) is happy with ridiculously sexist belief frameworks that make her a subset of her own sex (“cis”, really?), and isn’t prepared to listen to the “lived experience” of anyone less sheltered or privileged than herself. How VERY “inclusive” that makes her! And she clearly doesn’t respect democratic process, the long fight for women’s equal rights, or believe her fellow citizens should have the right to comment on or openly discuss issues that they know directly impact them if she thinks they don’t affect her personally, or that they could possibly provide her with information that she hasn’t considered, because She, after all, Knows It All Much Better Than They Do and They Will Do What She Tells Them.

Well, the thing is, women like this don’t speak for me either. Or a great many of us. And we ARE speaking about it, how we feel, what the law is, what the implications and impacts are, whether she thinks we should be permitted to have a voice or not. Consent requires mutuality and respect. My consent is not her unilateral choice, and it’s not her decision. Try having respect and empathy for your fellow women instead. And for god’s sake, do try opening your mind for once, and LISTEN. You may even find you learn something useful.

The enablers, excusers and perennially naive “Be Kind”ers, (yes, it includes some women as well as out and out right-on misogynists-du-jour like Billy Bragg and Owen Jones), often get on their high horses to tell us evil bigots that we are extrapolating from “a few bad apples” to an entire group of people, which makes us no better than “literal Nazis,” obviously.

Well, while they’re sticking in their heads in the sand, or otherwise ignoring, denying and refusing to condemn, while they continue making excuses for the behaviour of the supposed ‘few bad apples’, those bad apples keep on revealing who they are to the public, again and again, and AGAIN. (Did a great job of it this week also in the Mermaids v LGBA case (see Tribunal Tweets’ Substack), which I’ll write about separately, as it’s just been gobsmacking. What a pile of own goals! Even the Guardian has been forced to report on it - with the article being one of the most read stories yesterday.)

We really don’t have to go very far to “cherrypick” behaviour here. The behaviour and red flags are constant. Additionally, many advocates are clearly proud of behaving like this, it being clear that, for them, it isn’t a bug of their movement but a demonstration of it. Crucially, none of the people accusing us of “cherrypicking” is bothering to try stopping it. Where are the condemnations from Bragg et al, from our righteous politicians, from our civil liberty groups? Nowhere. They are perfectly happy to condemn and lie about the women who point it out though and extrapolate that this makes everyone who believes sex is real and salient politically an ‘evil right wing Nazi bigot funded by the American Christian right.” Despite absolutely zero evidence of this being the case.

At what point are these demented people going to admit that the ENTIRE ideological movement they’re supporting is based on:

Overt, Often Violent Misogyny Towards Non-Compliant Women

Overt woman-hating has now become the ‘edgy activist’ cause du jour.

This is what the young male ‘activists’ of Reclaim Pride Brighton said should happen to women who speak publicly about their current legal rights if we ever came to Brighton. “Militant self defence?” “Love and rage”? “Bash the fuck back?”

Talking about our own current legal rights under Equality Law is not “bashing” “physical violence” or “fascism’ .Of course, when you dehumanise ordinary female members of the public as “Evil TERFs” pretend that they have views they don’t, and frame any woman speaking and wanting to hold on to their own CURRENT LEGAL rights instead of pandering to men at all times as “guilty of violence” and “genocide”, it’s easy to disguise the fact that you’re literally just advocating men beating up women on the street for the ‘fascist crime’ of talking about their own current legal rights and not agreeing to subjugate themselves.

Sounds just like any other VAWG-excusing MRA and incel-talk to me. “She wouldn’t submit so I had to beat her and make sure she knows her place. Look what she made me do”

You’ll recognise, I’m sure, some of the other recent advocates of this approach:

Dresden “Pride” 2022

Think this bears no relation to real life? Earlier this year:

Bristol June 2022

A masked man dressed all in black yelling, “Go home and look after your kids” to women talking about their current legal rights is definitely a VERY progressive person, no? As was his getting an obvious erection while screaming abuse at them.

Barcelona 2022

So nice to see police ignoring male threats to kill women who refuse to be subjugated.

The Frequent Use Of Sexualised Threats

Again, Dresden Pride, 2022.

Manchester, June 2022

It’s strange how they accuse US of being ‘obsessed with genitals’ when they are the ones constantly talking about how they would like to use them to subjugate us if we won’t comply. Almost like sexual violence is predominantly a male thing, and they’re behaving exactly like the violent males we had to have single sex spaces to avoid.

A Pornified, Degrading Analysis Of What Women Are

What does these fetishists’ idea of ‘woman’ have to do with the daily lives of actual women?

Putting on my clothes in the morning doesn’t give me an orgasm, sorry. Femaleness isn’t ‘being f*cked’ or subjugated. I don’t get a sexual thrill from the idea of being slapped about or when I’m catcalled and jeered at in the street. I’d rather be free. Sort out your issues with YOUR maleness and the ideals of maleness in society instead of gleefully trying to appropriate and getting your sexual kicks off the worst subjugation that happens to women. We don’t get a kick out of it. You’re showing us what sex you are by celebrating it. You will NEVER be us.

For some reason, these fetishists are often feted as ‘heroines’ of the trans movement (despite being very obviously NOT examples of the people we’re all simultaneously supposed to think are the most vulnerable), especially by obsequious pseuds in academia, media and publishing who appear to have been gaslit into imagining they’re somehow being cool and this is a new uber-progressive form of “feminism” Why? How can this be any form of feminism? How can they not see how bloody regressive this is?

Constant Creepy, Red Flag Behaviour &, As Above, Male Sexual Fetishism

You know what, gender fundamentalists? If you don’t want people to suggest that there seem to be a lot of creepy men and fetishists in your movement, stop cheering on males who are behaving exactly like creeps and fetishists while SAYING they represent you and trans human rights in some way. And no, they certainly don’t represent women.

Nothing says “I definitely shouldn’t be in women’s spaces” more clearly than being being anti-women’s rights protestor at the EHRC wearing a fetish duck mask and pouring wee over yourself while wearing a transparent dress through which everyone can clearly see your penis. And protesting for the ‘right’ to be let into women’s spaces at all times. The answer is and will continue to be NO.

There are PLENTY more. I could fill pages and pages with examples like this person. It’s not a one-off. For example, here’s an additional late entry from the last day or so, that I honestly assumed was a hoax. But no, apparently not. This is how one man is turning up to his job as a teacher in Ontario. Gender zealots are now accusing women who point out what this is (and that they would be ‘pulled aside if dressed like this in a school) out of ‘policing’ this man’s appearance. The school, his employer, has officially stood up for him and his ‘inclusion’ and rights.

Apparently, there is no recourse to complain about this fetishist and the obvious safeguarding (not to mention the professionalism) issues of him bringing his sexual fetish to work . The kids and THEIR feelings and comfort, not to mention their education and right to be safeguarded against sexual fetishists IN THEIR OWN SCHOOL don’t matter at all, it seems. Can we stop this ‘sacred caste’ business now, please?

Not to mention the ubiquitous flag. Since when are baby pink and blue stereotypes progressive? Or Mermaids’ Barbie to GI Joe Gender Spectrum? Please.

Additional Entry, New York, November 2022

Unsurprisingly, I’ve been informed on Twitter that my and others’ observation that the fetishistic behaviour of the below man “demonstrating for trans rights”, obsessed with jiggling his “moobs” while he and mates screamed abuse at women and told them they were going to “f*ck them up”, is prejudice and bigotry on MY part. I would suggest that perhaps this isn’t the best look for demanding you should be given entry into women’s spaces. Of course, as above, the behaviour of this man who wasn’t condemned. Just the women who point out what it is.

January 2023

With smiling SNP Politicians. Apparently, it’s ‘cherrypicking’ to point out that threatening to behead women you disagree with is a disgusting, murderous sentiment - of the type that it is common to see in “trans rights” marches and activism across the UK, Europe & the US. They’re only sorry they’ve been caught ‘endorsing’ it in a photograph though they claim not to have known. Are you blind? Have you not seen what people have been showing you from elsewhere on other marches? And do you think that sentiment won’t be one day directed at you the minute you put a toe out of line? Wake up.

Look, I guess for people whose boundaries are kind of porous, whose critical thinking and dot-joining skills aren’t that great and who’ve allowed themselves to be taken in by this stuff, but really? I don’t think there’s any excuse now at all. The people supporting this crap at this point are enablers. Of the worst misogyny we’ve seen in years, of violence, coercive control and abuse, of homophobia, of sexual coercion, of the removal of safeguarding and women’s right to boundaries, and of a dangerously totalitarian men’s sexual rights activism which is profoundly anti equality and actively anti-women’s democratic and human rights.

The whole barrel of apples is rotten to the core. There really can be no making excuses for this bullshit any longer.