Can a Person Identify as a Tiger?

Framing the Question

However one words this question, “Is it permissible for a person to identify as a tiger,” “Is it possible for …” etc., then it is clearly still a yes/no style of question that, in reality, only affords two possible answers.

Of course, ask it of one thousand people and one might receive one thousand differently nuanced replies, but the only alternative conclusions are yes or no. The view of anyone who ‘isn’t sure’ or ‘doesn’t know’ or prevaricates in some other way should probably be discarded. Whilst the question might be considered to have some nuanced complexity, I suspect that any reluctance to answer would disappear if the question were to be asked anonymously.

Is each of those two possible answers equally valid? Ostensibly, the answer to that question is yes, on the basis that it appears to be a matter of opinion. Naturally, it isn’t quite as simple as that, for, despite what I said above, the specific formulation of the question is really rather important. This is because the use of the words ‘can’, ‘permissible’ or ‘possible’ has implications related to our understanding of the meaning of those words.

For example, and at the risk of getting ahead of myself here, it might be possible to say that the only proper answer to the question is no, for obvious reasons (which should become apparent later).

Freedom of Expression

So, let’s try to revise the question.

“Does a person have the inherent capacity to claim, if she so chooses, to state that she believes herself to be a tiger?”

This is a much better formulation of the question because it focusses on the fundamental issue of freedom of expression. One is really asking whether it is possible to deny a person the ability to openly state her beliefs, whatever they might be.

Without entering into an argument about whether there are some beliefs that should not be capable of being expressed openly (this isn’t an article about free-speech absolutism), it is reasonable to assert that, in fact, there is only one answer to this specific question, which is yes, of course a person can express that particular belief.

The reason for this is twofold.

Firstly, a person has the fundamental right (in the proper sense of that word) to the sanctity of his own thoughts and beliefs. It isn’t the prerogative of another person, be that an individual, the state or some other entity, to deny him his thoughts, beliefs and feelings.

Secondly, absent some overriding reason, this is not the sort of belief that should be suppressed, and it is difficult to think of what an ‘overriding reason’ would look like in this context.

So, of course, there is no reason why a person should be prevented from stating openly that they believe themselves to be a tiger, that they ‘identify as’ a tiger.

Having established that right to freedom of expression, it is important to note that this is, ultimately, the wrong question that is being asked. The real question is that if a person ‘identifies as’ a tiger is he actually a real tiger?

Objective Reality Over Belief

At this point, it might be worth noting that this is not an article aimed at the professional philosopher or written from the standpoint of any particular philosophical model. I am not interested in arcane philosophical minutiae. This is, ultimately, a question of common sense that all but those reluctant to engage can answer very straightforwardly.

The answer is no, a person who claims to identify as a tiger is not really a tiger, for the very obvious reason that no human being can be a tiger however much she wants it or believes it to be the case. (This is what I meant earlier when I alluded to the fact that some might have said that ‘no’ was the only possible answer to the question as originally posed.)

The answer is still ‘no’, even if the person concerned wears a tiger costume, has her body painted to resemble a Bengal tiger, has oversized canines implanted into her mouth or has a tail surgically attached to her rear end.

The reason for this relates to biology, how we use language and how we define categories. Everyone will understand and agree with this apart from postmodernists and queer theorists, for whom biology, language and categories are anathema.

In biology, we separate organisms into categories and classifications and we use words as understandable labels to both identify and define those categories. Hence, while humans and tigers are both members of the kingdom Animalia and are also mammals, they are entirely different species, distinguishable through DNA as well as basic observation skills. Tigers are felines, humans are not and it isn’t possible to change species. There may be some people who would reject this, but they would be mistaken to do so; humans are not tigers.

So what about these questions?

“Does an adult man have the inherent capacity to claim, if he so chooses, to state that he believes himself to be a seven-year-old boy? If so, does that mean he is actually a seven-year-old boy?”

I would hope that it is fairly clear from what is stated above, that the answers to those questions are, ‘yes’ and, ‘no’, respectively. If a man wants to believe that he is a seven-year-old boy and claim that ‘identity’ openly, then he can do so, but it is not objectively true that he is one. The category difference is not, in this case, related to being members of a different species (though many a parent might have doubts about that) but to the fact that an adult cannot be seven-years old. Those two categories are mutually exclusive.

And before any pedant turns around and claims that there are, or may be, many adults who, for no fault of their own, might have a functional age of seven, that still does not mean that they are, actually, seven-years old. An adult is not a child.

Logically, therefore, applying this to the question of, in shorthand form, whether a man can identify as a woman, the answer is, yes he can but that does not make him an actual woman. Objectively, he remains a man irrespective of his own subjective notions. Not only is this material reality it is also the law with respect to discrimination legislation in the UK, following the judgment in the For Women Scotland case in the UK Supreme Court.

The Incoherence of Gender Identity

All this leads, inevitably, to the general problem with ‘identities’, which is that however ‘real’ the individual’s perceptions might be that the belief they hold is true, that does not make it objectively true. One can shout from the rooftops that one identifies as a red, double-decker London bus, but it can never be objectively true. ‘Identity’ can never trump reality.

This brings us back to postmodernism and queer theory, philosophies that view reality as a social construct shaped by power and language, not fixed truths. While they offer insights into cultural narratives, their core aim is to deconstruct language and dismantle meaning itself, denying science and objective reality. This is where transgenderism, along with critical race theory and social justice models, finds its fuel, prioritizing subjective ‘identities’ over material facts and leaving categories like ‘woman’ undefined.

It is also why, of course, we have the rather astonishing problem that there are politicians, activists and organisations that cannot define what a woman is, or rather, they are reluctant to do so except by means of producing self-referential alternatives.

Read more

I qualified as a solicitor in the mid 1980s and worked for many years for local authorities in the field of child protection. Whilst every day was different, a lot of the work possessed similar characteristics. However, having been in practice for over a decade I was sent out of the office one day to serve some papers on a mother who had been very reluctant to engage in the court process. This was not, in itself, unusual, but when I reached the address in question I was greeted by several people who reacted very strongly to my presence with a mixture of indignation, shock, fear, anger, disbelief and sheer outrage.

My (female) boss had sent me (a man) to a domestic abuse refuge. To this day I do not kknow why, but I still vivdly recall the reactions I engendered. The women in the refuge, the staff and clients, were understandably livid. In those days, the exact locations of such refuges were a closely guarded secret - abusive men stop at nothing to track down women who have the temetiry to leave them. Even the mail sent to refuges was collected from sorting offices to avoid the need for deliveries, which could both add to the risk of discovery and lead to another man attending the property. As much as possible was done to protect those safe spaces and the need for such caution was universally acknowledged. A failure in the system could be deadly, because men can be deadly.

Not much more than a generation has passed since that day and yet the world is a changed place. Men have managed to dismantle that protective environment almost completely. Refuges promote ‘inclusive’ policies that enable men to inhabit once female-only spaces, many rape crisis centres refuse to provide female-only groups, women who request such a service are told to ‘reframe their trauma’ and the philanthropic creation of a desperately-required service for female victims of sexual violence is portrayed as bigoted. If I had been told even as recently as the end of the noughties that JK Rowling would, less than 15 years later, have to use her own resources to open the sole female-only sexual violence support service in the Edinburgh region, I would have thought the speaker utterly crazy. And yet, here we are. A tweet from SNP Councillor Lauren Oxley , in which she criticised the claim on the Beira’s Place website to be the only such female-only service in the Edinburgh region as ‘insulting to other service providers’, is indicative of the political rsponse in Scotland. The fact that the organisations she quoted in her tweet actually do not provide single-sex services seems to have escaped her.

Men have always found a way to fight back against any progress that there has been in women’s rights, often supported in that fight by women. The current so-called ‘trans rights’ movement is merely the most recent manifestation of that phenomenon. This time, the battleground is language and science and the approach has been to colonise women’s spaces by seeking to redefine the very idea of womanhood to include men. In order to do so there has had to be a concomitant assault on biological reality and the very essence of scientific thinking.

Science can be tricky. At the cutting edge, many remarkably bright individuals are engaged in extraordinary work, making a positive contribution to progress in ways that the majority of us will never understand. However, not all science is as esoteric as, for example, the work that happens at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Some is much more straightforward and accessible to the average person. Of course, every scientific subject can have its specialist and complex elements, but quite often the basics are extremely simple. Despite attempts to muddy the waters by those with political and ideological motivations, biological sex is one such example.

Human beings are mammals and, like all mammals, we reproduce sexually. This requires two types of reproductive cells, large ones called eggs and much smaller and more mobile ones called sperm. Humans that produce eggs are female, those that produce sperm are male. This pattern applies across all species of mammals ; horses, foxes, red deer – name a mammal and up pops the same reproductive process. This is science that we all learn at school.

A person’s sex is determined at the moment of conception. Whilst the biological mechanics are complicated, the explanation of them is simple. The nature of the sex chromosomes (whether there is a Y chromosome present) and a combination of various biological processes place a baby on one of two ‘reproductive pathways’ – one towards the production of eggs (female sex), the other towards the production of sperm (male sex). Whilst biological sex isn’t just determined by chromosomes alone, the vast majority of babies are born with XX or XY chromosomes and are thus female or male respectively. There are only two possible types of reproductive cell (gametes) called aggs and sperm - there isn’t a third. Likewise, there are only two sexes, female and male – there isn’t a third. This is precisely what is meant when one says that biological sex is binary. There are only two gametes and two sexes.

Nature, though, isn’t perfect. Babies can be born with a variety of features that diiferentiate them from what might be considered typical – extra digits for example. And many human characteristics vary wildly from one individual to another – height, hair colour, eye colour etc. None of these differences mean that these people are not human. None of them defiines a different sub-species or affects a person’s biological sex. Thus there are female humans and male humans. Woman is the term that describes an adult who is a human female, in the same way that ‘hind’ is an adult female red deer, or mare an adult female horse.

There is a small minority for whom the above definition of ‘woman’ is unacceptable, because it isn’t ’inclusive’ enough and is, in their eyes, somehow ‘transphobic’. What they mean is that it excludes males from the definition, and boy do they want to redefine what it is to be a woman so that it does include men! Consequently, various approaches are used as a means of attacking the biological reality of sex. All of them are, at best, disingenuous. More often than not they are deliberately misleading.

One major claim is that to define ‘woman’ by relation to biology is, somehow, ‘reducing’ women to their biological functions only. The accusation is that to do so is to impose upon women in general some form of biological essentialism, which feminism has been fighting against for decades. This argument is, of course, absolute nonsense as it conflates two very different issues, as those who promote it know full well. That a woman is ‘defined’ by her biology in no way means that any individual woman has to be limited in her life because of that biology. What is, however, absolutely essential is the ability for women to define themselves in a way that recognises them as a distinct sex class because the oppression of women is entirely sex-based (and not gender-based). It is that very ability which is being attacked by the trans lobby. Indeed, for the whole ideological edifice to survive, trans activists have no choice but to seek to eradicate the concept of sex and replace it with gender, for only by doing so can the mantra ‘trans women are women’ have any life breathed into it at all. As Dr. Jane Claire Jones eloquently said in the recent documentary Adult Human Female,

‘The trans rights movement is asking for the rights of another class of people and then claiming that if we do not give them the rights of another class of people that they’re being oppressed, that’s unprecedented. And it turns out that the rights of the people they’re asking for are themselves members of an oppressed class. And the members of the group that are demanding those rights are members of the dominant class. So what we have is male people demanding female people’s rights.’

As part of the ideological onslought, activists often claim theat sex isn’t binary at all, that it is somewhow more complex and akin to a spectrum. In aid, they often highlight the fact that ‘intersex’ people exist – intersex being the ‘I’ in the LGBTIQ+ alphabet. Many organisations that represent intersex peop0le find this approach to be highly offensive – intersex is neither a sexual orientation nor an ‘identity’. Indeed, the word itself is outdated and is really a catch-all term for a collection of approximately 40+ developmental conditions, differences in sexual development (DSDs), that affect a very small number of individuals. None of these DSDs involve a third gamete or a third sex so do not invalidate the truth of the sex binary, and no one with, for example, Turner Syndrome (basically a lack of an X chromosome that only affects females) is less of a woman because of it.

The trans movement is very good at saying what things are not, as is noted above – biological sex is not binary, a woman is not an adult human female, but asking them for positive definitions of anything reveals the fallacies behing the ideology. Certainly, there is a wealth of definitive-sounding mantras that are repeated ad nauseam (‘trans women are women, trans men are men’ being the overwhelming favourite, followed closely by the utterly banal and fundamentally meaningless ‘trans rights are human rights’.) However, ask a trans rights activist to define the word female or what a woman is or what ‘living as a woman’ means and the responses one receives are farcical.

A woman, we are told, is whoever ‘identifies as a woman’. The fact that this is a completely circular definition that explains nothing is the actual point of why it is used. Ask what ‘identifying as a woman’ means and the response will be something along the lines of, ‘You know, someone who says they’re a woman and who lives as one.’ I have yet to see or hear anything more sophisticated as a response. Some activists know full well that they are spouting illogical nonsense ; others seem truly baffled by the idea that their ‘explanation’ is considered entirely risible. All are deeply invested in the ideological assertion that everyone has a ‘gender identity’, despite the fact that such a concept is neither definable nor (consequently) falsifiable.

The logical instability of the underlying principles are usually ignored by those activists who subscribe to the theory of gender identity. Put simply, they say, not only does everyone have a gender identity but such an identity is both 100% valid and 100% only determinable by the individual. It doesn’t take a degree in logic to realise that this is an unsustainable position. If one’s’gender identity’ is individually determined and validly so, then those who deny the existence of gender identity have a position that is equally valid. Thus, not everyone has a gender identity, which completely undermines the basic notion. And that’s before we even start down the path of trying to actually define the central concept itself.

This all feeds in to the question of ‘what is a woman ?’. As stated above, the only possible way to pursue an argument that trans women are women is to replace the notion of biological sex with the concept of gender identity.

Delve deeper and enquire as to what ‘living as a woman’ means and the true nature of the ideology is revealed in all its stark misogyny. For ‘living as a woman’, in trans speak, translates as some weird agglomeration of traits such as what a person wears, calling oneself a ‘girl’, being suitably equipped to hand out sanitary products in the nearest loos to any passing woman in need, adopting particularly stylised mannerisms (the hand gestures, the hair flicks, the head tilt, the walk, the poses), an obsession with cosmetics and/or fashion and a variety of other forms of expression that a man might consider to be typically ‘feminine’. Ah, but I am clearly confusing ‘gender expression’ with ‘gender identity’ the former being how one ‘expresses’ the latter – which is yet another nonsense word salad that means nothing, explains nothing, clarifies nothing.

At its core, therefore, to the idealogue, beng a woman is nothing more than wearing a costume and engaging in a heavily stereotype-laden performative art form. A woman is not an adult female human but merely an idea in the head made up from a collection of supposedly ‘feminine’ attributes. It is the most regressive concept of womanhood imaginable and the very antithesis of feminism. That the political home of this misogynistic ideology is the left is entirely baffling – that so many women in positions of political power and influence openly accept the occupation of womanhood by men is depressing. It is, perhaps, that true collectivism has been replaced by an individualistic identitarianism that has had to find a substitute for that lost socialist understanding of the collective. It has found it in the form of the concept of inclusivity and the idea that excluding someone from a group that they feel they belong in is somehow unkind, hateful and bigoted. Insisting that there may well be very good reasons why exclusion is appropriate has become the political equivalent of leprosy, with the shouts of, ‘Unclean, unclean,’ echoing ever louder.

Women’s sport is one prime example where the consequences of such thinking have led to enormous problems. Everybody knows, and I do mean everybody, that male puberty leads to male sporting advantage, particularly at the elite level but also as one travels down towards grass roots participation. One look at the male and female world records in athletics, swimming, cycling, rowing will demonstrate very precisely the said sporting advantage (hint, the male records are approximately 10+% superior to the female ones.) Add to that the fact that all of the scientific evidence available proves that testosterone suppression therapy has very little impact on that retained male advantage and the very obvious conclusion is that allowing male athletes who now identify as women into female sporting categories is completely unfair. And yet, with some notable exceptions, sporting bodies the world over from various diciplines and from the IOC down the hierarchy have been content to pass ‘inclusive’ regulations. When originally faced with the inclusivity question any regulator with an ounce of integrity and just a smidgen of scientific aptitude should have said no immediately: it is obviously unfair at first glance, which is why female only sports were created in the first place, and thus the onus is on those who wish to change the status quo to provide incontrovertible evidence that inclusivity can occur without unfairness and without safety being compromised.

The justice system is another area where women are greatly impacted by this ideological sleight of hand. In Scotland 2022 will be remembered as the year that the Scottish Parliament defeated an amendment to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill that would have prevented men accused of sexual offences from claiming to be women and obtaining a gender recognition certificate. As a consequence, a man accused of rape can claim to be a woman and his victim can be forced to address him as female in any court hearing. How can the sheer wickedness of that be ignored by any right-thinking person ?  Where does one’s head have to be to consider such an outcome to be reasonable ? To an old leftie like me it is utterly unfathomable how the supposed rights of alleged sex offenders can be prioritised over the dignity and safety of women, the principal victims of these crimes, by a political alliance between the SNP, the Labour Party, the Greens and the Lib Dems.

And the consequences do not stop there. In the last few weeks the Daily Record has published a story about Daniel Eastwood. I call him Daniel because he is a man, even though he claims to be trans and goes by the name Sophie. He murdered a fellow prisoner in 2004 by strangling him with shoelaces. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 15 years. He has served that minimum tariff but has not been progressed through the system or released on licence because he fails to fully co-operate. He ‘came out’ as trans four years ago and has been incarcerated in women’s prisons since 2018 (albeit in secure units). Now he is saying he identifies as a baby and wants to wear nappies and eat baby food. He has already been given a dummy. A member of staff is quoted as saying he likes being the centre of attention! His story isn’t unique.

There is a thought experiment one can undertake which is perfectly illustrative of the ludicrous situation one lands in by accepting the suggestion that ‘trans women are women’. Imagine a secluded island where the 100 inhabitants are all biological males who ‘identify’ as women and as lesbians. They can be a mix of post-operative ‘trans women’ and others who have had neither surgery nor hormone therapy but all must accept the foundational ideas of the movement that trans women are women and sexual orientation is gender based and not sex-based. If the only resource denied to this group over 1000 years is any form of access to a biological female, what would be found on this island at the end of that period ? The answer is quite simple – 100 skeletons, and we wouldn’t have to wait 1000 years because, having produced no children, the community would die off very quickly. Each skeleton would be identifiable by forensic scientists, from a combination of its structure and remnant DNA, as male. Being a woman isn’t defined by one’s capacity to give birth (there are many women who can’t) but ONLY women can give birth and men cannot. Everyone knows what a woman is and it’s high time that our politicians and institutions stood up for sex-based rights and the survival of the word ‘woman’ as meaning ‘adult female human’.

Rugby Union has seen policies change at a national level, bringing the likes of the RFU and the WRFU into line with the world governing body. However, the landmark change came with the decision of FINA, swimming’s international rule-maker, to bar all male-born athletes from female events (unless they have completed their ‘transition’ before the age of 12).

Despite what trans activists might want the world to believe, the science in this area is very settled, as can be seen from the studies that underpin the guidance issued by the UK’s Sports Council in 2021.

There are two main elements to this scientific consensus. The first is that adult men who have been through male puberty are, on average, stronger and faster than females. They have narrower hips, bigger feet, bigger hands, longer limbs and greater lung capacity, to name just the main physical differences, all of which lead to superior performance in most sports. A simple comparison of male and female world records in swimming, athletics, rowing and cycling, for example, proves the point elegantly. Male records are, on average, a whopping 10% better than female ones.

The second element is that all of those physical adavantages are retained to a very significant degree irrespective of the level of testosterone reduction any particular athlete might undergo or the length of time any such regime is maintained. In short, there is no process that can reduce the male advantage of androgenisation in any significant way such as to make the participation of natal males in female sports categories remotely either safe or fair.

In order to combat this, the ‘pro-inclusion’ lobby resorts to several tactics and one will hear several varieties of the argument. For example, that the science ‘isn’t really settled’ or ‘more research is required’. These are often heard together, along with complaints that the science itself hasn’t been ‘inclusive’ or has failed to properly take into account the impact of other transition-related factors (such as trauma). There is, thus, a concerted effort to ‘find’ the science that will support ‘inclusion’, even to the extent of putting together studies that have the express object of proving that inclusion is fair and safe!

A complementary approach is to misrepresent the recent rule changes in favour of protecting the integrity of female sport as actually preventing trans individuals from competing in sport AT ALL. Most notably, in the wake of the RFU/WRFU decisions, several articles were published focussing on the impact on trans rugby players. Invariably, these have tried to garner sympathy for the players concerned by falsely claiming that the rule changes prevent them from engaging with ‘the sport they love’. The reality is, of course, that all of these players could continue to play, just not in female teams. The overriding impression one gets from these stories is the sheer narcissism of the men (and it’s always men) involved. They are so self-absorbed that  everything has to be geared to the validation of their erroneous belief that they are actually women, irrespective of the impact upon the sex-class they are so desperate to be a part of. What is it, one wonders, that drives middle-aged fully intact men to want to play rugby with a bunch of twenty-something year-old women (young enough to be their daughters) as opposed to joining one of the huge number of rugby clubs where men of all ages, shapes, sizes and fitness levels play ‘the game they love’?

The most recent major journalistic foray into this area is the interview of Tom Daley that was published in the Independent on 16th October. To describe the article as mostly a piece of sycophantic fluff would be to oversell it. It is much, much worse than that. The very first paragraph has Daley being quoted as saying that the worst thing about diving is being wet and cold all the time, hardly the image of the robust Olympian one might expect. Within three paragraphs Daley is being promoted as “Britain’s best-loved Olympian”, a claim that is so far from the truth as to be worse than risible. Perhaps sport isn’t the author’s forte, but even a casual observer would be able to identify a plethora of alternative athletes more worthy of the accolade. Steve Redgrave anyone? Kelly Holmes, Chris Hoy, Bradley Wiggins, Mo Farah? All of these have actually won Sports Personality of the Year, for example, and many have vastly superior Olympic achievements. Daley did, at least, finish runner up last year in the BBC’s prestigious poll, beaten by that ‘much loved Olympian’ Emma Raducanu.

The main focus of the article, however, (or at least the subject highlighted in the article’s headline) is Daley’s views on ‘the decision to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s diving’. This, Daley said, made him ‘furious’. The reason for his fury, seemingly, is that ‘everyone should feel welcome when they try sport’. Daley is falling into the same error as most of the pro-inclusion commentators here. FINA’s ban does not stop anyone from being ‘welcomed’ into the sport, it merely prevents male-born individuals from competing unfairly in female categories. Moreover, trans identified females who are not supplementing with testosterone are perfectly able to compete in their proper female sex-category.

Fairness, of course, is a tricky subject to handle from a ‘pro-inclusion’ perspective, as is highlighted above. It is no surprise, therefore, that the article sidesteps the issue completely. There is a one-line reference to the argument against ‘inclusion’ which is immediately dismissed because Daley is said to be making a ‘broader’ point. “I just think of myself when I was younger,” Daley says. “I am not transgender, obviously, but if I was told as a gay man I was never going to be able to compete because of who I was, then of course I’d never have tried.”

The most obvious criticism of this is that it is not a ‘broader’ point at all. It’s an extremely narrow one that deals with his own personal circumstances that bear no relationship whatsoever to the issue of trans inclusion. Banning gay athletes is clearly discriminatory because the ONLY reason for such a ban being enforced would be related solely and exclusively to a person’s sexual orientation. Gay men are still men, still the beneficiaries of male puberty and they do not have any sporting performance advantages over other males. As we have seen, trans identifying males do retain significant performance advantages over females and their ‘inclusion’ would be intrinsically unfair (and, in some sports, unsafe for female athletes).

Perhaps most telling however, is the misogyny on display. No thought whatsoever is given to the impact upon women’s sporting ambitions of being faced with the prospect of never being able to win anything because there would always be a man on the top podium. Does Daley think that women do not have the same inner competitive desire as men? Does he believe that women’s ambitions do not count? Or does he think women should just be content with the joy of participating? Maybe he thinks women deserve to be relegated to being also-rans behind men, because that is what a fully trans-inclusive policy would lead to.

Daley clearly doesn’t ‘do’ irony, though, for a few paragraphs later (when talking about his politics) he expresses concern for those who are vulnerable, including his brother who is an apprentice who has ‘a little girl’. Let’s all hope she doesn’t grow up to want to be a competitive swimmer in Daley’s Brave New World.

Thankfully, Daley says he is not interested in being a politician, although he does raise the spectre of continuing to use his public platform to speak out. If this article is anything to go by he needs to stick to the platform he is best suited to – the one that’s 10 metres above a pool.

If you want to support my writing but do not want to subscribe to my substack then you can always buy me a coffee here. https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ukvillafan

Will British Cycling fall into line with the approach taken by FINA or will it meekly adopt the UCI’s new compromise? Might it even have a knee-jerk reaction and take a leaf out of FIFA’s book and remove any sort of restrictions to trans inclusion completely?

British Cycling has consistently been in the news recently as a result of its policy on the inclusion of transgender athletes. Readers may recall that a furore erupted when it was reported in March this year that a transgender athlete, Emily Bridges (an intact biological male who now ‘identifies’ as a woman), was going to be allowed to compete in the British National Omnium Championships in the female category. As a result of the consequent controversy, British Cycling barred Bridges from competing in that specific competition.

That decision, clearly, was not one they wanted to make, as is obvious from the tone of the statement they issued on the subject, but was forced upon them by the international governing body (the UCI) because, as it transpired, Bridges was still registered as a male athlete. In the statement, released on March 30th, British Cycling called for wide consultation on the issue. I obliged them by sending an email to their compliance team, the transcript of which can be found below. In it I raised a number of serious concerns about their policy document. Whilst I received an acknowledgment of my email no substantive reply was forthcoming.

However, British Cycling then produced a further statement on April 8th stating that it had suspended its transgender inclusion policy pending a full formal review. This statement referred specifically to the guidance issued by the Sports Council’s Equality Group, a document that I quoted in detail in my email, and I felt suitably encouraged. Whilst I knew full well that my contribution will have made no impact, at least this statement gave an indication that British Cycling was aware of the divergence between its policy and the guidance. This gave the appearance of progress.

Alas, it seems that my optimism was premature. I should have known better. Despite publicly stating that it had suspended its inclusion policy, transgender athletes have been allowed to continue to compete. As is reported in this article in The Times, a transgender athlete, Maxine Yates (whose ‘gender’ is recorded as female on the British Cycling website), took part in British Cycling’s downhill event held at Fort William on May 8th. Yates came first in the senior women’s over 19 category. Perhaps unsurprisingly, after that win Yates lead the national rankings on British Cycling’s website. The woman who came second, Jane Page, has complained to British Cycling that they have failed to apply their own policy and is seeking that Yates be disqualified. I understand that an investigation is being undertaken.

The article states that this is not the only example of the continued participation of trans cyclists in events under British Cycling’s umbrella. Perhaps the most interesting point raised, however, is that The Times reports that Yates claims to have sought clarification in advance from British Cycling about participating in this event and was told that the new policy ‘only applied to new licence applicants’, meaning that Yates, who already possesses a licence and ‘was not competing at an elite level’, was free to continue competing. If this report is accurate then it calls into question the integrity of those responsible for implementing British Cycling’s current policy and the organisations commitment to open debate. The April 8th statement makes no reference to the policy being suspended only in relation to new licence applicants nor in respect of elite competitions only. One could be forgiven for theorising that British Cycling had concluded that it would not be subjected to further detailed scrutiny once it had issued its statement and that it could carry on ‘as normal’. Perhaps it thought it would receive complaints from transgender ideologues if it actually implemented its new position and opted to avoid that possibility. After all, the trans lobby has hardly been backward it its denunciation of individuals and organisations that it considers to have acted in a ‘transphobic’ manner.

If this is the explanation for British Cycling’s failure to implement its own policy (because surely it cannot be plain incompetence, can it?) then it has badly misread the current climate. Women are coming forward in growing numbers to defend their right to enjoy fair competition and this opposition to unfair inclusion policies is only going to grow as the bullying by the ideologues and the abject surrender of governing bodies are scrutinised more closely. British Cycling has seemingly allowed itself to be captured by an ideology that has no basis in scientific reality and has been running scared from the trans lobby for fear of being vilified and called ‘transphobic’. A failure to realign will, in fact, lead to British Cycling, and other similarly afflicted sporting authorities, being called out by a much bigger and ultimately more powerful group, women. The tide is already turning, as can be seen from this week’s events.

Sadly, other UK cycling organisations are similarly afflicted. CTT, which is responsible for the organisation of cycling time trials also has a ‘trans inclusion’ policy. It claims to put into effect the aforementioned Equality group’s inclusion guidance with respect to ‘non-contact’ sport. However, the Group’s new guidance refers specifically to ‘gender-affected sport’ of which cycling is, quite categorically, a major one. Under its current rules, Lilly Chant, another fully intact biological male ‘trans-identified’ athlete participated in, and won, a time trial held by Bournemouth Arrow Cycling Club on April 15th. This was two weeks after the Bridges furore, a week after British Cycling’s decision to suspend its inclusion policy and a full six months after the guidance issued by the Sports Council. I wrote to the race organiser and the governing body seeking clarification. CTT has failed to respond. The local organiser confirmed that after Chant won the race the national and regional bodies were contacted and both said Chant had been eligible to compete. As a sport, cycling has lost its way.

The primary evidence for this can be found in the announcement on June 16 by the world governing body, the UCI, confirming the outcome of the review of its transgender inclusion policy. Up until the past few days, with the notable exception of World Rugby, sports international governing bodies had been content to ignore the very clear science relating to the retained competitive advantage that flows from going through male puberty and focus on testosterone suppression as a means of promoting transgender inclusion. The Uk’s Sports Council’s Equality Group issued revised guidance on this in September 2021 making it absolutely plain (following a comprehensive review of the science) that fairness in female sport cannot be achieved by a regime of testosterone suppression. Generally, that guidance has been ignored but can that remain the case now that FINA, using the same science, has taken the steps it has?

British Cycling has the chance to be a true pioneer for fairness in the UK by stepping back from its ‘inclusion at any cost’ approach and developing a new policy that both centres natal women and provides an opportunity for trans athletes to continue competing. In order to do so it has to recognise that the solution is not to include trans women in female only categories but to find a truly innovative solution. All governing bodies must accept that women’s sport is not a dumping ground for mediocre or failed male athletes, whatever the reason for their choice to ‘identify’ as women and that affirming the scientific lies of gender identity dogma is not ‘kind’ but corrosive.

Transcript of my email to British Cycling sent on 2nd April 2022

I have just read your statement relating to the decision of the UCI to bar transgender athlete Emily Bridges from competing in this weekend’s British National Omnium Championships. As you have called for the widest possible consultation on this issue, I thought it might be helpful for you to receive a contribution from an ordinary member of the public in the spirit of open debate and discussion implied within your public statement.

It is obvious that British Cycling was expecting that Emily Bridges would be allowed to compete this weekend in accordance with your own rules. The tone of the statement makes it clear that you are both frustrated and disappointed at the decision made by the UCI, as you emphasise that facilitating Emily Bridges’ participation has been a focus of your organisation for some time. As I understand it, the UCI decision was based on the fact that Emily Bridges’ registration is as a male athlete rather than because of any specific failure to meet other guidelines. As an initial point, if seems incredible to me, given the fact that you have a legal and compliance team, that no one seems to have picked up on this obvious difficulty beforehand. Perhaps if your approach had been more nuanced, rather than weighted heavily towards an ‘inclusive’ mindset (as it clearly is) then this particular problem could have been foreseen.

I say this because your statement emphasises your desire to be inclusive of transgender participants even to the extent of ‘celebrating’ it. ‘Celebrating’ the inclusion of transgender individuals is terminology lifted directly from the activists’ handbook and gives your statement the feel of being propagandist in favour of one side in this complex debate. Contrast this with your brief mention of the issue of fairness, which appears to be both grudging and contextualised by a reference to the need for further research in this area. Your statement is, on the face of it, little more than a plea not to be blamed for this athlete’s exclusion from one of your competitions coupled with a call for better research, as if there may be something that might suddenly change the basic facts relating to fairness and the participation of trans women in female-only sporting competitions.

It seems that British Cycling would do well to reassess its own policy position within the context of the available current evidence before troubling itself with speculating about what future research may produce. The following points spring to mind.

Transgender individuals are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and have their lawful rights appropriately acknowledged and complied with. As well as being the human thing to do, this has been a legal requirement since the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. Indeed, it is generally unlawful to discriminate against transgender people, who are in a protected category under the legislation. Far from lacking specific rights theirs are exactly the same os any other group of individuals who might fall within one of the protected categories in the Act. No one is seeking to deprive any trans person of their rights. To claim otherwise, as many trans activists do, is a posturing political point.

Of course, ‘rights’ are an awkward thing because often the rights of one group conflict with those of another. This is reflected in the Equality Act specifically in relation to the participation of transgender individuals in gender-related activities such as sporting competitions. In essence, it is not unlawful to exclude transgender individuals from competitive sport for the sake of ensuring fairness or safety. The fact that British Cycling’s policy on transgender participation in racing (as opposed to purely recreational cycling) seems to ignore the concept of fairness is, perhaps, the first thing that needs addressing. The very idea that it is sufficient for a trans woman athlete to produce evidence of reduced testosterone levels in order to facilitate participation in women’s competitions is clear evidence that your organisation has favoured the concept of inclusion to the detriment of the integrity of sporting competition.

Whilst many will welcome your suggestion that there needs to be greater coordination between the sporting authorities, as well as your call for further research, both might be seen as a smokescreen. In reality, there is ample evidence in this area already and it is extremely unlikely that any further research will lead to any other conclusion than that trans women who have been through male puberty will retain significant performance advantages over natal women due to androgenisation. Furthermore, placing testosterone limits on trans women is clearly not sufficient to compensate for this advantage; the current figure for British Cycling is approximately three times the level of testosterone than the average female competitor, so even if male puberty did not lead to retained advantages, you rules are still inadequate. Testosterone level control and monitoring is not the answer, even if the permitted level is further reduced or the length of time that compliance is required for is extended. It is, in reality, merely a ruse to give the impression of fairness whilst slavishly promoting inclusion at all costs.

How is it possible to be so clear about this? Because the five UK Sports Councils have already done this research and published guidelines as recently as September 2021. These are readily available online on the website of the Sports Councils Equality Group. This excellent document contains ten guiding principles in relation to transgender participation in domestic sport, which arise from a comprehensive review of the available evidence. The highlights of those principles are numbers two, four, five and six.

2. Categorisation within the sex binary is and remains the most useful and functional division relative to sporting performance.

4. Competitive fairness cannot be reconciled with self-identification into the female category in gender affected sport.

5. Based upon current evidence, testosterone suppression is unlikely to guarantee fairness between transgender women and natal women in gender affected sports.

6. ‘Case by case’ assessment is unlikely to be practical nor verifiable in gender affected sports.

These conclusions are very clear and reflect not only the available scientific data but also common sense. The fact that British Cycling has not adopted these principles in full demonstrates that the conclusion I drew earlier, that you have prioritised inclusion over fairness, was entirely accurate.

The guidance document goes on to discuss various alternative models that could be adopted as part of the way forward. One of the options is to prioritise transgender inclusion (which seems to be the model that British Cycling has de facto adopted). However, the guidance makes it clear that, ‘No current method of inclusion for transgender people can guarantee fairness for the female category’. It goes on to state that, ‘This option is considered appropriate for a sport which has determined that inclusion rather than fairness is the objective of the category’. British Cycling, it would appear, has indeed made the determination that inclusion is the priority over fairness. The inescapable conclusion is that this must have been by choice and that you have been captured by the ideological propaganda of a small number of very vocal activists. As a result, your current policy actively harms natal women by ignoring their sex-based right to fair competition and, by so doing, completely undermines the integrity of competitive cycling.

I would therefore invite British Cycling to become a pioneer in this area. Stop listening to propaganda, really take on board the actual scientific data and prioritise fair competition for natal women. Rather than promoting inclusion at all costs until additional scientific evidence is available, apply the guidelines referred to above, safeguard the competitive integrity of your sport and exclude all trans women from female competition until the scientific evidence changes.

For those who either do not recall the furore or have been living under a rock for the past few months, Thomas is a biological male who used to swim for Penn State’s men’s team with, it has to be said, limited success. Thomas now self-identifies as a woman and, after a period of transition and hormone treatment, was allowed, under the rules as they then were, to compete in the female category in various college-level events. Unsurprisingly perhaps, with the significant and well-understood benefits of having gone through a full male puberty, Thomas was extraordinarily successful. Pictures of Thomas on the winner’s podium dwarfing the women who filled the other places speak for themselves. The tall, broad-shouldered and narrow-hipped Thomas was clearly a completely different physical specimen to the women in those races. This outward manifestation of the differences between the sexes merely hints, however, at the more deep-rooted advantages that flow from the androgenisation effects of male puberty.

Whilst Thomas’s story was playing out in the world of American swimming, British Cycling, the UK’s national cycling governing body, clearly felt left out and decided to make its own bid for notoriety. Enter one Emily Bridges, another fully intact biological male athlete who had been competing very recently as a man. Having followed a similar ‘transition’ path to Lia Thomas, Bridges was due to compete in the female category of the British National Omnium Championships during the weekend of April 2nd. At the 11th hour, Bridges was barred from competing following a decision by the world governing body, the UCI, which confirmed that Bridges remained registered with British Cycling as a male athlete and thus could not compete in the female category. As the date of writing this article, that registration has not changed.

British Cycling issued a press release in which it explained that both they and Bridges were extremely disappointed, not least because there had been ongoing discussions with the UCI for some time, with the stated objective of facilitating Bridges’ participation. British Cycling had clearly approached the whole issue from a particular ideological perspective that promoted inclusivity at the expense of any degree of fairness.

Further public debate occurred involving both athletes (by no means the only ones profiting from inclusive approaches around the world) and these led to changes or suspensions of the relevant policies on transgender inclusion pending further reviews. Neither national governing body has, to my knowledge, concluded any such review as yet but there has been movement on the international stage.

The central argument concerns the efficacy of current policies in reaching an appropriate balance between the perceived need for inclusion of ‘trans women’ within female sport and fairness and safety for ‘natal’ women. From the International Olympic Committee downwards the almost universal emphasis has been on prioritising inclusion over fairness. This has been facilitated by a very specific approach based on, essentially, two main factors – testosterone suppression regimes and time. Put simply, the only requirement for a biologically male athlete to be able to compete in women’s sport has been the provision of a consistent, reduced level of testosterone over a specific period of time. There is no requirement, for example, for any form of surgical intervention so at the elite level it has been the perceived wisdom that fairness can be achieved if fully intact biological males simply reduce their testosterone levels. Initially, the IOC guidelines required biological male athletes to suppress testosterone to a consistent level of less than 10 nano-moles per litre for a minimum period of 12 months. More recently, governing bodies including those for swimming and cycling have lowered the permitted levels to 5 nano-moles per litre.

This approach has a myriad of flaws, both scientific and ethical. Ignoring the science issues for a moment the most egregious problem is that the very essence of these policies is fundamentally misogynistic. Women are being told that they are just men with less testosterone – the very idea is demeaning and should have no place in 21st century policy-making. What is worse is that even if all other things were equal (which they are not) the permitted levels of testosterone under the most recent rules are still approximately three times higher than the average female range, which is between 1.12 and 1.79 nano-moles per litre. Even as the rules are currently formulated, therefore, there is no requirement for men to reduce their T levels to a figure remotely close to being within the typical female range. Just take a moment to think about that; what message does that send? Not only is fairness erroneously considered simply a question of testosterone levels but those sanctioned levels would not even go close to levelling down T as between biological males and biological females. Clearly, these bodies have been content to sacrifice any semblance of real fairness on the alter of inclusive ideology.

But the nonsensical position does not end there because even if the testosterone suppression that was required actually reduced levels down to within the female range that still would not centre fairness above inclusion. This is because concentrating exclusively on T suppression ignores the major advantages that men have over women in most sport – broader shoulders, narrower hips, longer levers, bigger lung capacity, bigger hands, bigger heart and blood circulation capacity and so on. These are the result of the androgenisation produced by male puberty and their performance consequences are easy to identify. In track and field athletics, for example, all of the male world records are approximately 10% better than the equivalent female ones. Furthermore, thousands of 15 year-old boys produce performances every year that are superior to the female world records. The pattern in swimming is similar. The unfairness is obvious for anyone to see if not blinded by ideology and politics.

The responses of governing bodies and activists promoting ‘inclusive’ policies have a similar motif – that the science isn’t settled, that the science we have is somehow flawed and, in reality, such advantages as described above don’t exist. Why not then, they say, just be kind and inclusive, for to do otherwise would be clearly motivated by transphobia. This is usually coupled with a demand for ‘better science’ (by which they mean science that supports their position) and wider discussions.

The true position is that the science is very clear. The UK Sports Council’s Equality Group produced revised guidance in September 2021 following a comprehensive review of the available research. Its conclusion, in brief, was unequivocal – that an inclusion policy based on T suppression is unlikely ever to produce fair competition between ‘trans women’ athletes and natal female athletes because of the long-lasting advantages produced by male puberty. That should be the end of the matter, but of course it is not. We now have the spectacle of trans athletes saying that they are participating in new research in this area and that this will demonstrate ‘once and for all’ that there is no inherent long-lasting physical advantage that is enjoyed by biological males who suppress testosterone levels. Any such research will be meaningless, of course. The objective (to prove a truth which the researchers believe to be self-evident) in itself invalidates any possible scientific value. The participants know what findings are desired and the research will not involve, therefore, even blind studies, let alone double blind ones. Such ‘research’ will not produce evidence but simply more propaganda, which is all the inclusion activists have ever had.

Despite having the opportunity to change direction and begin to prioritise fairness over a misguided notion of inclusion, governing bodies continue to fail women. On 16th June the UCI announced new rules. Rather than acknowledge that reducing T levels can never lead to fairness, the UCI has merely extended the required transition time to 24 months and lowered the permitted consistent T level to 2.5 nano-moles per litre. The science behind this is of extremely dubious quality and no doubt Emma Hilton will demonstrate this with her usual eloquence in due course.

This decision is cowardice in the face of political bullying and women deserve better. It amounts to nothing more than kicking the can down the road a few metres instead of addressing scientific reality. Surely now is the time for Britain’s female cyclists to stand up and say that enough is enough. Follow the example of downhill mountain biker Jane Page and show some self-respect and pride. Where are the voices of Laura Kenny, Sarah Storey et al? What about all of those familiar names from British Cycling’s recent period of success – Chris Hoy, Jason Kenny, Victoria Pendleton, Rebecca Romero, Mark Cavendish and the like? Are these stars willing to remain silent in the face of unfairness?

And then there is FIFA, as ever the bastion of reason, common sense and critical thinking in the midst of chaos. Faced with overwhelming evidence that having biological males in female sport is unfair (and indeed, in a fast contact sport, incredibly dangerous, FIFA has bitten the bullet and decided to reverse its transgender policy. Not, however, as one might imagine, with the objective of promoting fairness and safety for women by further limiting the inclusion of biological males in women’s football. No. FIFA’s ‘solution’ (and I am being really generous with that description) is to remove all of the limits on participation. So, no testosterone suppression required at all. This will lead to nothing other than the complete erasure of women’s football. I look forward to the football world rising up in opposition to this attempt to remove the very concept of female football. Male professional footballers might just be the most powerful group of sports stars in the world so, come on fellas, let’s have some collective action to support the integrity of the women’s game. If enough of you refused to participate in anything sanctioned by FIFA or any national body that adopts such a policy you could make all the difference. Gary Lineker, Jamie Carragher, Alan Shearer. Gary Neville – you too have clout. Let’s be havin’ you!!

But not all is doom and gloom, however. Returning to the Lia Thomas story I propose three cheers for FINA, the world governing body for swimming, which has today announced a blanket ban on all biological males who have been through male puberty from competing in female categories at an elite level. It is undoubtedly the case that this policy change has come about due to the hard work and commitment of women athletes, their families and coaches, supported by a plethora of scientific experts and a collection of superstar former elite-level athletes. They have all taken a brave public stand to support the integrity of female-only support in the face of bullying ideologues and have demonstrated that reason and common sense can prevail. It may not have a perfect solution to the fairness v inclusion question but FINA is very much heading in the right direction. The suggestion that a third ‘open’ category might be an option in which trans athletes could compete is not new but it does need refining. If FINA can get this right and other governing bodies can follow suit then we will soon discover whether this was, actually, all about a desire to be allowed to participate and compete or whether it was just mediocre males wanting to win something, anything, at all costs and at the expense of women.

The Fund has recently approved a grant to help the LGB Alliance set up a help line - cue the hyperbolic rage machine that is the ideologues weapon of choice.

Owen Jones stepped up to tweet his disgust, giving his opinion that the LGB Alliance was set up ‘purely to oppose trans rights’. He also presumed to speak for the ‘vast majority’ of the LGBTQ community by claiming that the Alliance is ‘abhored’ by those ‘who know anything about it’. He described the funding as ‘trolling LGBTQ people on a grotesque scale. No hyperbole there then!

Of course, he is entitled to as many erroneous views as he likes - and he has plenty in this area. However, a modicum of calm and rational investigative journalism would have led him to the real reason for the setting up of the LGB Alliance, namely a need for an organisation that focuses on the needs of gays, lesbians and bisexual people, by which I mean those who are either same-sex attracted or bisexuals who are attracted to others based on biological sex, which is real, and not gender identity, which is undefinable and without any scientific basis. Stonewall, the well-known LGBTQAI+ (add suitable extra letters as you wish) rights group has been busy moving its focus from the ‘LGB’ to the ‘TQ+’ element. In so doing, many LGB individuals have felt abandoned and worse. Stonewall is the main protagonist in this culture war and it is busy with the gender ideologues’ plan to remove all sex-based rights with those based on gender. Conveniently ignoring the legal definition of homosexuality (the sexual attraction of a person to another of the same sex) Stonewall now promotes an ideology that shames LGB individuals for wanting to maintain the idea of same-sex attraction.

John Nicolson MP also jumped aboard calling the decision to approve a grant ‘shocking’. He also called the LGB Alliance a ‘hate group’ claiming that it was targeting ‘vulnerable young LGBT people with prejudice and disinformation’. all said without a hint of irony. The other usual suspects made an appearance, mostly wittering on about the LGB Alliance being against a ban on conversion therapy. This is, of course, a real example of ‘disinformation’ for what the Alliance opposes is the ban on conversion therapy being extended to include ‘trans children’. As has been highlighted in the interim Cass Report and elsewhere, vulnerable and distressed young people, a majority of whom would grow up to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are being ‘affirmed’ in their alleged trans identities and put on a medical pathway that includes prescribing puberty blockers. One has to look no further to find the modern manifestation of gay conversion therapy.

I am indebted to Malcom Clark’s Twitter feed @TwisterFilm for highlighting this issue and, as he suggested, I have written to the National Lottery Community Fund. The content of the email is below.

“I understand that you have received some ‘feedback’ from part of the ‘trans community’ regarding your funding of the LGB Alliance. I thought it might be helpful if you were to receive comments with some perspective, as opposed to the misinformation that the trans activist community appears to have been bombarding your twitter account with.

I am a straight white male. I am thus not affiliated with the LGB Alliance, although I support wholeheartedly the need for lesbian, gay and bisexual people to have their own support organisation. I am also a retired barrister, so I hope that I can bring some rational thinking to the debate, which appears to be sadly lacking in many of the Twitter posts I have seen.

The main criticism from trans activists (who form but a small part of a very small, but exceptionally loud, minority in the UK) is that you have agreed to fund a ‘hate group’. The basis for this claim varies but it generally riffs on the suggestion that the LGB Alliance wants to ‘eliminate’ or even ‘exterminate’ trans people. This is clearly ludicrous hyperbole.

The LGB Alliance was founded because many gay, lesbian and bisexual people became disillusioned with Stonewall as it has morphed into an organisation that prioritises the ‘rights’ of trans individuals (in the widest sense of that term) over those of same-sex attracted gays and lesbians and sex-attracted bisexuals. The most obvious expression of this change in direction is Stonewall’s support for the idea that same-sex attraction must be replaced with ‘same-gender’ attraction on the basis that same-sex attraction is, somehow, ‘transphobic’. This is coupled with the position taken by Stonewall (and others) that all ‘trans women are women’ and any ‘trans woman’ who is attracted to women is, by definition, a lesbian. Given that the vast majority of trans identified males (trans women in the activists’ jargon) neither take hormones nor have any form of ‘bottom surgery’, Stonewall’s views lead to the bizarre spectacle of, in particular, lesbians being shamed and targeted for not wanting to sleep with someone who has a penis.

Gender critical views are a protected belief under the law and sexual orientation (not gender orientation) is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Homosexuality is defined as ‘same-sex attraction’ not ‘same-gender attraction. As in other legal areas Stonewall could be seen as promoting incorrect views of the law for the purpose of pursuing a very specific political agenda. The efforts of the ‘trans ideologues’ to delegitimise the LGB Alliance are a part of the same movement.

Given the level of abuse directed at the LGB community by those who pursue gender ideology it is no wonder that the need for the LGB Alliance was identified. Gender ideologues have decided that groups like the LGB Alliance and those seeking the maintenance of single-sex spaces for women and girls are a direct threat - not to individual trans people but to the political power the ideologues currently wield. Their choice is, as always, to bully people to get their own way and to stifle debate. I hope that these are tactics that you will have no trouble ignoring. Far from being ‘trans-exclusionary’ your decision to grant funding to the LGB Alliance is the epitome of inclusivity.

If you need any examples of the hate-filled homophobic and misogynistic abuse perpetrated by the trans community I suggest you browse this website - terfisaslur. These may be extreme examples but they are the direct result on mainstream gender ideology.

One interesting factor in this story is that Hamilton has received much more support from the players at Hastings and Brighton University (where Hamilton studies and plays) than the likes of Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges have. The obvious difference is that those two trans athletes compete in sports that are, for the most part, focussed on individual competition; the other women around Thomas and Bridges stand to lose out significantly due to their participation. In Hamilton’s situation the other players will gain from having a goalkeeper who is six feet tall with all the other benefits of having been through male puberty. Hamilton’s presence will greatly improve the chances of the team winning. Plus, of course, Hamilton plays for the University of Brighton, not known as a hot bed of gender critical feminism. No wonder the teammates are so supportive.

Perhaps the most informative aspect of the story, however, is Hamilton’s non-football activities. Hamilton is studying for a PhD at Brighton researching the effects on trans athletes of medical transition. Hamilton said this in an interview given to Pride on the Terraces in 2020, “Being male-born the general argument that I am trying to disprove in my research is that trans women have an advantage and that you’re taking a place away from a girl.”

Undoubtedly, this is an area where further research could be beneficial, but not if it is done in such a non-scientific and partisan way. Scientific research, which Hamilton claims to be conducting, should follow the scientific method. One is not supposed to start with the conclusion one wants to reach and then try to find the data and evidence to support that conclusion. That is almost bound to lead to evidence being ignored if it does not support the desired conclusion. It also will cast serious doubt upon the methodology of the research.

This is basic stuff, so how Hamilton received funding and approval for this research, as is necessary for all PhD studies, only the powers that be at Brighton University can say. Perhaps the clue is in the fact that the university is, after all, in Brighton, but it probably helped that Hamilton is also the lead investigator for the Tavistock Transgender Athlete Study. The fact that this “research” is linked directly to the Tavistock would go a long way to explaining why and/or how it has been funded. Of course, the published protocol for the study states that its aim is to be ‘investigative’ in this area, but how the results of this research will have any credibility at all given Hamilton’s stated aims is beyond me. I suspect also that it will not assist in eliminating any suggestion of bias that since the research started the Tavistock has come in for severe criticism in the interim Cass report for the way in which it has promoted the ‘affirmative model’ with respect to children referred to it who have difficulties relating to gender expression. I, therefore, am likely to treat the results of Hamilton’s research with a hefty dose of scepticism.

As a consequence of this story reaching the headlines, I visited the FA website to read its transgender inclusion policy. Inevitably, there were aspects of it that were a cause for concern, not least of which was the FA’s declaration that it had received ‘input and guidance’ from a ‘specialist trans organisation’. The FA clearly did not deem it necessary to seek ‘input’ or ‘guidance’ from any women’s organisations that might have had something to say about safety and fairness in women’s sports. Perhaps that might have been seen as too partisan! In an effort to promote change, I have written the following letter to the FA. I won’t hold my breath but I cannot just do nothing, however futile it might at first seem. The FA has also published a guidance document to accompany its policy which has its own issues. I foresee a second letter and/or article being necessary. Suffice it to say at this stage that it is liberally sprinkled with the term “assigned at birth” in relation to sex and gender. I spy the hand of gender ideologues!

“Dear Sirs

In light of the current controversy surrounding the participation of transgender individuals in competitive sport (especially in women’s competitions) and the recent stories concerning Blair Hamilton and Hastings United’s women’s team, I have today read the FA’s amended 2014 policy on the issue. Please can you confirm whether there has been any update to this policy document and, if not, whether it is your intention to reconsider your policy.

On the assumption that there has been no update, there are a number of issues that arise from your current policy that I would be grateful if you would address.

In the introduction to the policy, you refer to your desire to ensure the inclusion and safety of participants. Whilst I recognise that the concept of ‘fairness’ is referred to elsewhere in the policy, its omission from the introduction does give the impression that you give it a reduced emphasis compared to those you have mentioned. Was this omission an oversight or the result of a deliberate decision to downplay the importance of fairness in this policy area? Will any revised policy be likely to remedy this omission?

When dealing with the background to the policy you state that you are happy to have followed the then guidance from the Sports Council on the participation of transgender individuals. Given that new guidance was issued in September 2021 will you be reviewing your policy in light of this and adopting in full its new recommendations?

You also state that you sought the input and guidance of a ‘specialist trans organisation’. Can you confirm whether this was Stonewall? If not, which ‘specialist’ organisation gave you guidance? Is there any reason why your policy does not identify this organisation? In the interests of transparency, can you publish the input and guidance received, or at least a detailed précis of it? Can you also confirm why you did not consider any input from specialist organisations in the area of women’s rights, particularly as the issues of safety and fairness are as crucial to natal women as they are to trans individuals, probably much more so? Will you undertake to correct this further omission upon reviewing your policy?

In the section relating to what gender reassignment means you are at pains to explain that it is one of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. However, this section fails to mention that sex is also a protected characteristic or, indeed, that any policy that favours inclusion over fairness or safety (for example by giving undue weight to the first of these) could also be considered as discriminatory against natal women. The FA seems not to recognise that natal women are, in effect, a protected group too and should not be discriminated against. Will this be corrected in any policy review?

Turning to the policy itself, the general rule is stated as being that ‘any players playing in an age range above the under 18 age range must be of the same gender’. This terminology is wrong and, in a document specifically relating to gender issues, has the potential to be confusing and misinterpreted. Many trans activists argue that trans women and trans men ARE the same gender as women and men respectively. Instead of ‘gender’ you should be using the term ‘biological sex\ or ‘natal sex’, with the emphasis being on the word sex. Gender is a social construct and not a biological term.

Furthermore, this is a change from the original 2014 policy in that the age for mixed children’s football has been increased to 19. This appears to run counter to the FA’s own statement about the impact of male puberty on strength and muscle mass etc. Can you please advise as to why this amendment was made and upon what scientific basis it was considered safe and fair to do so?

The policy then says that applications to depart from the general rule will be considered on a case by case basis. The current Sports Council guidance, referred to above, states that a case by case approach is no longer appropriate. Please confirm that the FA will take this on board when revising its policy.

The Sports Council guidance also makes it clear that upon the evidence currently available, testosterone suppression is unlikely in itself to counteract the effects of male puberty so as to make it either fair or safe for trans women to compete in the female category. In light of this, even if no other amendments are made, will you now remove from your policy the automatic assumption that complying with hormone treatment will lead to an application to participate being successful?

As far as the stated ‘hormone-based’ requirements are concerned, these refer to testosterone levels being reduced to ‘within the natal female range’. Can you please clarify what those levels are and from where you have obtained the relevant scientific data? It seems to me that a transparent policy should make these details absolutely clear.

The FA maintains a confidential register of trans players who have been allowed to participate in their ‘affirmed gender’. Please confirm how many such approvals have been granted. Football is a sport that belongs to everyone and this is information which should be on the public record.

Having considered your policy document in some detail it is clear that there is an urgent need for your policy to be fully revised and updated. Please confirm that you will do so.“

Subscribe now

“Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you following the disclosure in the Mail Online this morning of your recent policy guidance on strip searches. Your organisation may think that, in prioritising alleged ‘inclusivity’ over the sex-based rights of both women and men, it is in tune with public thinking, but you most definitely are not. You have, like many other national and regional organisations, public bodies and businesses, allowed your thinking to be clouded by ideologues and you have done so, no doubt, for fear of being criticised by this very vocal minority. Either that or you just think it is cool to be trendy.

All trans women are biological males. Most trans women (between 90 to 95%) not only do not go through any gender reassignment surgery but do not have hormone treatment either. In addition, we have moved on from the situation where the majority of individuals who transition do so because of some deep-seated gender dysphoria. It is now just as likely to be a life-choice as it is to be related to treating a particular feeling of profound distress.

Whilst any right-minded person recognises that individuals can make whatever decisions they like about how to live their lives, including choosing a gender identity different to the sex into which they were born, that does not mean that rational thinking should be sacrificed on the alter of ideology. A strip search is, by definition, an extremely intimate procedure and hitherto the guidelines have been clear, as I understand it, that they should be carried out by officers of the same biological sex as the person being searched. Those guidelines were in place for very obvious reasons – the dignity and protection of both the person being searched and the officer performing the search to name but two.

There is no adequate reason for those earlier guidelines to be altered but your organisation has done so nevertheless. The very fact that the new guidance emphasises the feelings and sensitivities of a trans officer who might be involved in a search to the complete exclusion of the dignity and feelings of the person being searched tells us all that we need to know. I have no doubt that this change to your guidance has been influenced by Stonewall or another similar organisation. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the drafting of it was farmed out to someone with an activist agenda – it certainly reads that way.

Whatever else they might be, trans women are (and will forever remain) biologically male. The vast majority will have retained their full male anatomy, as detailed above. There are circumstances where it is perfectly legitimate to prioritise the needs of individuals based on their biological sex, especially women who have, historically, been the victims of aggression and violence perpetrated by biological males, including several police officers. A strip search is clearly such an occasion.

The mantra ‘trans women are women and trans men are men’ is nothing more than an expression of a political ideology which is, in fact, completely divorced from reality. It is a calculated tactic to obfuscate language with the aim of removing sex-based rights so that they can be replaced by those based on gender. No trans woman can possibly understand what it is to be or to feel like a woman. Any trans woman who thinks that this new guidance is appropriate and that it is thus discriminatory for a woman to object to being strip-searched by a biological male who ‘identifies’ as a woman clearly has not an inkling of what it really means to be female. If they did, they would know 100% that it is a violation of a woman’s dignity and personal space, not least because the likelihood is that the vast majority of women who find themselves in such circumstances will have had a lifetime of violence or abuse at the hands of men!

This new guidance is equally inappropriate for female officers who might find themselves being ordered to strip-search a trans woman who is a fully intact male on pain of disciplinary action if they refuse.

Your new guidance is misogyny writ large and needs to be withdrawn. If you do so, you might incur the wrath of the vocal activists but you will receive the support of the vast majority of the general public. It is time for organisations like yours to escape from the influence of the activist groups like Stonewall. Not only are they nothing more than a very loud voice claiming to represent a very small minority, but they do not actually represent anywhere near all of the trans community. Bullies become emboldened when no one stands up to them. The NPCC needs to take a lead by respecting the sex-based rights and needs of women whilst seeking to be, of course, inclusive towards trans people generally and, in so doing, rejecting the bullying tactics of ideological groups.”

Dawn Butler MP famously told Richard Madeley that. “A child is born without a sex”. In September 2021 Sir Keir Starmer appeared on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC and said that the words ‘only women have a cervix’ “should not be said.” This was in response to a direct question from Marr that arose from the fact that one of Starmer’s Labour MPs, Rosie Duffield, had said precisely that. In early March this year, Starmer gave an interview to the London Times where he stated categorically that ‘trans women are women.’ These are three of many examples that demonstrate unequivocally that Labour has succumbed to gender identity ideology and the consequences of this abject surrender could be catastrophic. For some, they already have been.

The cervix is part of the female anatomy. Males are not born with a cervix any more than they are born with a uterus or ovaries. Thus everyone with a cervix most definitely was born female. On the face of it, therefore, saying ‘only women have a cervix’ is not only permissible but scientifically accurate. However, the proponents of gender identity ideology cannot allow the norms of biology and sex to go unchallenged as this would fundamentally undermine the ‘theory’ upon which it is based. Thus it is essential for the gender activist that it is generally accepted that trans men are men (and trans women are women). It is Labour’s adoption of this mantra that enables Starmer to distance himself from Rosie Duffield, for if trans men are men then men can have a cervix too.

In the real world of course, as opposed to the virtual world of the social justice warrior, trans men are not men and trans women are not women. This is so obvious to the average person because few people actually confuse the concepts of gender and sex even if they might struggle with defining them. They know that a person cannot change his or her biological sex.

The debate began in academia, moved into esoteric political circles and is currently having a disproportionate effect on real life policy-making. Powerful lobby groups, such as Stonewall, have convinced political parties, not just Labour, that gender identity is more important than biological sex, that the trans cause is equivalent to the long-since successful battle for gay and lesbian rights and that if you are not fully behind this cause then you are a bigot, a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist), a transphobe or worse. Anyone with a different view is bullied, hounded and silenced. They are prevented from speaking on university campuses, targeted by campaigns aimed at getting them fired, intimidated into silence in the workplace, threatened openly with violence, told to ‘shut the fuck up’.

The gender ideologues are on a mission to replace sex-based rights because the binary nature of biological sex is inconvenient. Unless the primacy of sex is overturned then the central claims of trans women being women and trans men being men will be exposed for the nonsense that they are. The activists know this full well – cue the all out assault on language, science and rational thinking in the guise of a rights campaign. It has been a slick and successful one. The propaganda has infiltrated not just the political parties but major institutions such as police forces, business organisations, even the NHS. It is a seductive message of victimhood and oppression fuelled by misleading claims and targeted at the susceptible audience of the ‘enlightened’ left. Those of us who consider ourselves to be occupants of the liberal end of the political spectrum pride ourselves on being champions of the downtrodden and those who are society’s outcasts. It is a badge of honour for us, not because it makes us feel virtuous (although it does) but because we know it is the right thing to do. This is why the activists’ message is almost irresistible, but resisted it must be.

Those pushing this ideology say that trans people are the most vulnerable members of the community. In support of this they often state with certainty that trans people are more likely to be murdered than others or face greater levels of discrimination and thus need better protection, more rights. The objective is to change the law to permit simple gender self-identification where living as the opposite sex for three months and a statutory declaration that you identify as a man or a woman will be sufficient to enable you to be recognised in law as the opposite sex. Therein lies one of the biggest ironies of all. For while the activists denigrate the whole idea of sex-based rights and promote the primacy of gender, they want to be able to say that their feelings of identity mean that they ARE the opposite sex.

The truth behind the lies is illuminating. As far as it is possible to ascertain, there were seven trans-identified individuals murdered in the UK in the ten year period from 2008 to 2017 making trans individuals about one tenth as likely to be murdered than the average person. Of the seven identified murders in these figures three victims were sex workers and three others were killed by drug dealers or fellow drug users. Both of these lifestyles vastly increase the risk of being a murder victim (by 18 times in the case of sex workers in London). Only one of the cases suggests that the gender and/or sexuality of the victim may have been a major contributing factor in the crime. All of the victims were biological males as were all of the murderers.

Interestingly, over the same period there were more trans individuals who were perpetrators of homicides than victims. All of those perpetrators were biological males. There is thus no evidence to support the claim that trans people are at greater risk of murder in the UK than the general population. Indeed, quite the opposite, and being a trans man seems particularly safe.

As far as discrimination is concerned the fact is that transgender individuals have exactly the same protections as all other groups at risk, as the Equality Act 2010 makes being transgender a protected category. What the activists really mean is that when their dogmatic view is challenged by critics of gender ideology, they consider this to be hateful, transphobic and discriminatory. Being gender critical is categorised as heresy and the promulgators are harassed and hounded with all the zealotry one might expect from the fervently religious. Far from being the oppressed, trans activists are the oppressors. How else is it possible for someone to lose their employment merely for holding gender critical views, as Maya Forstater did? Why was it necessary for there to be an appeal court hearing to establish that her gender critical views are a protected belief? Without trans ideology having become the new norm, how does a respected academic like Kathleen Stock end up being forced out of her position?

Gender identity theory is leading political parties and major institutions down a path towards disaster. The insistence upon a change in the law to facilitate gender self-identification without any gatekeeping will lead to, amongst other things, unfairness in women’s sport, the elimination of sex-based rights and greater levels of violence and abuse, with women and children, in particular, being the victims. We know this because the perpetrators of such violence are adept at exploiting loopholes in the safeguarding processes.

The deleterious effects of gender identity theory are not a problem for the future because they are happening already. Trans offenders are placed in prisons according to their self-identified gender, leading to sexual assaults on female prisoners. The NHS has denied that a rape took place on a female ward on the basis that no male patients were present when, in reality, a trans woman was on the ward in question. The NHS has had to concede that the rape occurred. Sporting competitions have become farcical because male-bodied athletes have been allowed to compete in female only competitions. Lesbians are targeted because their same-SEX attraction is ‘transphobic’. Children are put on puberty blockers and a pathway towards hormonal and surgical transition with lifelong consequences.

The common thread here is that the victims of this new orthodoxy are, overwhelmingly, biological females or, as they themselves rightly describe themselves, women. Once again, the rights of women are being suppressed in favour of the rights of men and the ultimate responsibility for this rests with policy makers and politicians who have chosen to prioritise the dogmatic claims of a numerically small but noisy lobby. This is being done out of fear. They are afraid of being the next target of the cancellation process, fearful of being on the wrong end of the bullying and intimidation reserved for the heretics like Rosie Duffield, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, JK Rowling and many others. The Labour Party, above all, has to find its collective backbone and it can only do so if it begins to listen to real women.

The Labour Party has been captured by a new ’Militant Tendency’ but this time, the leadership is fully on board with the madness and in the grip of the ideologues. The ‘New Agenda’ is gender and woe betide anyone who does not toe the line. For so long the natural political home for many gay and lesbian activists, feminists and supporters of a variety of liberal causes, the Labour Party appears intent on aligning itself with a philosophy that is inherently sexist, misogynistic and homophobic, seemingly without even realising that it is abandoning core liberal values, scientific truth and, ultimately, a good proportion of its traditional voter base.

Recently, Anneliese Dodds could not define the word ’woman’ and Yvette Cooper went so far as to claim that to even engage with the question was pointless, refusing in her words, to go down the ‘rabbit hole’. In 2020 Dawn Butler famously claimed that all children are born without a sex (presumably because she had swallowed the ideological position that sex is ’assigned’ after birth) and last year Keir Starmer said that it was wrong to claim that only a woman has a cervix. Starmer’s position here is based on the ’fact’ that trans men (who will have a cervix) are men, and not women; thus both men and women can have a cervix. David Lamy subsequently went down his own rabbit hole by suggesting that trans women could, in some unspecified way, develop a cervix, after surgery or hormone treatment for example. Now Starmer is on record as claiming not only that trans women are women but that this is the legal effect of the combination of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equalities Act 2010. He is wrong on both counts but, in this debate, truth has been the victim for some time.

At the core of the problem is a confusion between the concepts of sex and gender, a confusion that has been actively promoted by gender identity protagonists. Sex and gender are two entirely different concepts and it is wrong to conflate them. Sex is biological. Every child is born male or female (almost without exception) and one cannot change one’s sex. There are only two sexes and a person’s sex is determined at conception and by the development path taken in the following 8 or so weeks in the womb. Hence why Dawn Butler’s comment about all children being born without a sex is nonsense. On the other hand, there is no evidence that gender is anything other than a social construct. Certainly. the idea that every person has some innate gender identity is nothing more than ideological speculation with no supporting scientific data. It is this imprecision that is fundamental to the idea of gender identity. There are plenty of difficulties with the concept of gender, especially as employed by the gender identity lobby. I would recommend taking a read through the article ’Gender Is Not a Spectrum’ by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper for an excellent exposition of the logical difficulties that abound with the concept.

A woman is defined by primary sex characteristics. The term woman means ’adult human female’ and it does not equate to a specific gender. In order to swallow the nonsense that trans women are women one has to accept that the term woman means nothing more than a collection of gender-related behaviours and characteristics. This is exactly what feminists have been fighting against for decades, so it is no wonder why passions are raised. It is time for the Labour Party to reflect upon its direction of travel and hit reverse. A trans woman is not a woman, however much any particular trans person might believe it to be the case. Believing something to be true does not make it so, and being truthful in the face of false claims does not make a person hateful or bigoted or transphobic, it just makes them honest. We could do with a generous injection of honesty into our politics just about now.

Of course, it is not only the Labour Party that has been infected by this philosophical virus. The Green Party, the SNP and the LibDems have likewise fallen prey to it. Indeed, the SNP has recently introduced a Bill that would amend the Gender Recognition Act and make gender self-identification a simple tick-box exercise usable by anyone from the age of 16. I am, effectively, politically homeless as my political family has become lost in an identity cult. Yes. it is that serious because of the consequences of making gender the centre of political policy making.

Taking up the mantra that ’trans women are women’ puts the Labour Party on the same side of the argument as Karen White, a sexual predator who, after declaring himself trans, was placed in a women’s prison and then committed further sexual offences. Women and children need safe spaces to protect them from sexual, physical and emotional violence which is almost exclusively perpetrated by men. Allowing simple self-identification creates a gap in the safeguarding system that perpetrators will walk straight through, as sure as eggs is eggs (and sperm is sperm).

Read more

Read more

Rocks abound on Bossiney Beach

Weekends are precious things and, for those of us who can make the time, can be a source of rest and relaxation more beneficial than longer periods away that involve excessive packing, train journeys, car travel, parking problems and, worst of all airports!

Travel light, pack a tent, don’t forget the sun screen, towels and swimming costume and head for the beach. Make the most of the summer whilst it is here and pick a less well-known destination to avoid crowds.

On The Way Down To Bossiney Beach

I live and work in the north-west, but a few weekends ago I jumped in my car at 6.00 p.m. on the Friday evening, drove down to Devon and spent Saturday through to Monday in the beautiful south-west corner of the country. I drove about 725 miles over the whole weekend but spent most of it completely stress free, on a Cornish beach or at a camp site drinking champagne cocktails and eating food cooked on a disposable barbecue. The big distances were at either end of the weekend, but I feel I ended up on the plus side, stress wise, despite the mileage.

Widemouth

Saturday - the sun was shining and after a relaxing start to the morning I was on the road again, this time pointing the nose of the jalopy northwards, with Bude in my sights and then a short trip west along the coast to Widemouth Bay.- pronounced Widmuth!!

This is a charming family-friendly beach with a small car park and a little cafe - ideal for a cold beer or two for the non-drivers. This was late July and yet the beach was pleasantly empty. It was an idea spot for a lazy day in the blistering sun and an evening beach barbeque.

The evening in the camp site nearby, at not much more than a tenner per tent, was a perfect ending - friends enjoying Prosecco cocktails in the fading light. Glorious.

Good Things Sometimes Require Effort

Sunday was as glorious weather-wise as the previous day and the opportunity was taken to visit Boscastle, which has recovered remarkably from the dreadful battering it received a few years ago. Don't pass through but stop, have a late breakfast and take the short walk down the river to the sea. You will be rewarded with a stunning view - just don't leave your camera in the car like I did!!

Looking west at Bossiney

The beach on the agenda was at Bossiney. The picture above shows the view west whereas the one below shows the opposite end of the beach. As you can see, the views are stunning.

North east from Bossiney

However, it is not the easiest place to find and for the reward of the sand and the views you need to pack some decent footwear and take a steep 20 minute hike down to the beach, and I mean 'down'!

You Also Get Rock Climbing Practice

This way off the beach is not an easy stroll!

If you look at the attached picture carefully you might be able to spot some handrails near the top right. Getting to them involves scrambling up the rocks, with the aid of a conveniently situated rope - and that's the easy part of the journey back! Whatever the weather, be sure to save plenty of water to keep you going on the steep climb back up towards the car park - it is neither short nor flat!

Having said that, the beach itself, as you can see, is well worth the effort and if you remember to look back as you climb (and rest assured, you will take every opportunity to stop on the way up!) you will be rewarded by excellent and inspiring views!

Beware Wildlife

Jellyfish wash up frequently.

If you are the sort who likes to brave a dip in the ocean - and it is the Atlantic out there - keep your eyes peeled for the wildlife, including the odd jellyfish. You will see some on the beach as well as in the water, as in the photo here. Jellyfish on the beach are NOT dead, so leave them alone would be my advice!Given the water temperature, you might fancy a wet suit too, although the initial chill will still get you, it will pass as the suit does its job. Ideal protection against those jellyfish too!

Sunday Evening - When A Little Pre-Planning Might Have Helped

 Padstow - if you intend staying there, book in advance. We didn't and ended up driving back to Devon instead after trawling around a few B&Bs and finding them all full - on a Sunday night.

Personally, I feel like renaming Padstow 'Steinstow', as Stein's influence is difficult to avoid. Given the option I'd go to St Ives instead, it is more varied and has better beaches. Of course, it's a little further away too, so not necessarily ideal for a very short weekend break.

First Surf, Then Turf

Neither surf nor turf, but sail!

 Or, to be more precise, The Turf Pub on Exmouth Bay at the estuary end of the canal. Fine food, fine views and a glimpse of how the other half lives - see the photo of the posh boats attached!

Having returned from the coast earlier than anticipated an alternative was required and The Turf filled in for a Cornwall beach admirably. There was still plenty of warm sunshine, despite the breeze, and there's a certain something about al fresco dining.....

Dear Mr Cameron,

August 21st 2013, Damascus. Syria sees yet another display of barbarism by way of the use, it would seem, of chemical agents upon the defenceless civilian population. The clamour arises immediately for a military response directed at President Assad and his controlling regime. It is at this point, in fact, a matter of speculation as to who is responsible for the use of these weapons, but the cry is heard, nevertheless, 'Something must be done!'.

After recalling Parliament early from the summer recess in order to debate the crisis in Syria and, in particular, to seek parliamentary support for military action in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, you will remember, no doubt, that you failed to obtain such support.

Indeed, MPs, in a rare demonstration of an understanding of the will of the British people, rejected all versions of the proposed motions that would have supported military action, including one that would have permitted action following receipt from UN inspectors of positive evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad. In the main vote, 49 members of your government coalition, approximately 20%, voted against military intervention, including 30 members of your own party.

Following this comprehensive and humiliating defeat, the BBC reports you saying, "It is clear to me that the British Parliament .... does not want to see British military action."

In subsequent polling, both the BBC and The Independent report that somewhere in the region of 65-70% of the British public supports the decision taken by their MPs.

It seems fairly clear that neither Parliament nor the average Briton wants a repeat of the mistakes made in relation to Afghanistan and, particularly, Iraq. The general view is against military intervention even if there becomes available incontrovertible evidence that Assad and his supporters were responsible for using chemical agents against his own people. Evidence which, I might remind you, has yet to be independently forthcoming.

It is also abundantly clear that to weigh in on the side of the rebels in Syria carries with it enormous risks, specifically by providing succour and support for the very terrorist organisations a succession of UK governments have identified as the main threats to peace and stability within our own borders. A threat seemingly so great that we have fewer freedoms in this country than we have had in living memory, all on the back of the claimed need for restrictive and intrusive anti-terrorist legislation so we can all sleep better at night.

At the G20 this week, therefore, I was somewhat surprised to see that you were actively supporting the call by the US, France and others for military action. Clearly, despite what one might assume, you have not attended the G20 intent on putting forward the will of Parliament or the overwhelming view of the British people, so just who were you representing at this summit?

Presumably, you were putting forward 'the Government's position'. But what is the purpose of government if it is not to reflect the wishes of its people? If it has been your intention all along to portray the UK as a supporter of military action, why seek parliamentary approval in the first place? Were you so arrogant that you assumed you would obtain such backing with little difficulty? Are you now merely seeking to rescue the 'special relationship'? Do you have so little respect for the British people, and their representatives, that you feel you can carry on regardless?

There is no legal basis for military action without UN support; the people of Britain are solidly against iintervention; Parliament has struck down your attempt to pursue an unlawful course of action. It's about time, Mr Cameron, for you to grasp the nettle and show some backbone on the international stage and actually represent us, the citizens of this country, and not your own cynical, pro-war political agenda. For my own health, however, I will not be holding my breath.

Yours sincerely,

The British People

As was inevitable, the print and online media contain several stories reporting on the outcome of Le Vell’s trial. I have blogged already about the questions his acquittal raises in relation to the decision-making of the Crown Prosecution Service and this theme is reflected in the output from national media chains.

The Daily Mail online has several different stories, one reporting on Le Vell’s reaction to the verdict, one querying why the prosecution was ever pursued and a third suggesting that the answer to that question lies in a change of approach in the post-Savile world since Operation Yew Tree. It has others – one can hardly accuse the Daily Mail of missing an angle!

To be fair to the Daily Mail, its blanket approach is ‘mirrored’ by other online media sources, such as the Daily Mirror (two of its stories can be seen here and here). Naturally, the ‘serious’ press covered the story in depth as well, as can be seen by these articles in the Guardian and Independent. The latter also has a short article focussing on the Crown Prosecution Service, but in reality, all of these stories in some way raise questions about the prosecution process.

The combination of these articles merely serves to demonstrate the potential consequences of a failed prosecution in this area, as I mentioned yesterday. Once the furore of this has died down, as it inevitably will, serious questions still remain. What led the CPS to change its collective mind and recommend prosecution, having initially refused to do so? Did the CPS change its position as a result of threatened action by the complainants family, as one of the media articles I have referred seems to claim? Did the Savile affair alter the thinking within the CPS?

More importantly, perhaps, given the CPS is funded by us all, how will the general public find out the answers to the above questions? Where will the scrutiny come from? For their needs to be scrutiny, if only for one main reason; the children and young people of this country deserve a justice system that promotes the disclosure of legitimate cases of abuse, discourages false allegations and secures the maximum likelihood of convictions for perpetrators. The internal decision-making of the CPS is central to those issues. Poorly-judged prosecutions that end in acquittal, if this can be categorised that way, do no service to anyone.

If this is causes you concern, as it does me, why not write to your MP with a query. You can easily find the necessary details on the web pages for Parliament. Perhaps you could write to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the official with overall responsibility for the CPS. Indeed, there are relatively new interim guidelines in this area that the DPP has posted a video about. He actually asks for public consultation, although he does not say when that is to end.

Whatever you choose to do, do something, or else you will lose a prime opportunity to make a difference.

In the current climate the case against Le Vell could not be categorised as ‘historical’, as the complainant is only 17 now and her allegations covered the period when she was aged 6 to 14. This is in contrast to the plethora of enquiries, charges and prosecutions variously relating to such celebrities as Stuart Hall, Dave Lee Travis, Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, to name but four (not all of which have children as the complainants, of course, although all have a sexual element). Hall’s offences for example, which he eventually admitted, took place between 1967 and 1985. As such, there isn’t the issue, commonly argued in relation to the ‘historical’ cases, of the lapse of time leading to blurred or otherwise faulty recollections. (In saying this, of course, I start from the premise that the memory of abuse, sexual or otherwise, is often both painful and very clear to the victims.)

This raises a number of crucial points, not least of which is the competence or otherwise of the original decision to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service. The defence barrister is reported as claiming that the victim’s allegations against Le Vell were “inconsistent”, “unbelievable” and had an “agonising lack of detail”. Of course, it is the barrister’s job to defend such allegations vigorously, but if those descriptions are even close to being accurate, several concerns arise.

I keep an open mind as to the decision-making within the CPS, which carries an enormous responsibility, but it is in no one’s interests for the CPS to bring weak prosecutions, if that is what has happened here, in cases of the alleged sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

Child sexual abuse has long been something the majority of the public would prefer to ignore. It is known to go on in households up and down the country and in all classes, income brackets or whichever other way of classifying families one cares to utilise, but it is such an unthinkable crime to many that it often produces a ‘bury the head in the sand’ response, in the hope that it might just go away.

Now, it may be that the alleged victim in Le Vell’s case just wasn’t a good witness, or she was lying, or she had other difficulties; I wasn’t there so I cannot pass an opinion on any of the evidence. However, an acquittal on such serious charges means that the complainant was not believed to the required level – the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For all relevant legal purposes Le Vell did not commit any of the alleged crimes.

Failed prosecutions can have two principle concerning consequences. They discourage other victims from coming forward and they reinforce the idea that children lie about such allegations. As a society we have to be satisfied that the CPS makes appropriate and accurate prosecution decisions in such cases. The public is unlikely to discover the specific details of the decision-making in this or, indeed, any other specific case, but it is crucial that there is a full and effective mechanism for these decisions to be reviewed independently if possible.

There are a number of words and concepts in the above paragraph that the majority of readers should find alarming in the context of patient-accessed emergency health care. ‘Tendering’ and ‘financial viability’, to name but two, should have you up in arms. They relate to the fact that this service, part of the NHS, has been privatised, sold off to the lowest bidder, many of whom are there to make a profit.

If ‘NHS Direct’ sounds familiar, you’d be correct. It was the name for the national service of out of hours telephone advice that the 111 service is designed to replace. I use the term ‘designed’ in the loosest possible sense, of course, as it would appear that ‘design’ wasn’t a concept fully envisioned by those who ‘masterminded’ the change. I use the term ‘masterminded’ ironically, of course, because … well, you see where I’m going with this I’m sure.

Previously, if you wanted health advice over the ‘phone for something that did not require the use of 999 then NHS Direct was the place to go. It was a national service i.e. one country, one NHS, one NHS Direct. However, this government decided it needed changing because it wasn’t working well enough. It may well, indeed, have needed some changes, but the Tories applied the only principles they really know to the problem – if something needs to work better, try to make it smaller (it it’s a public service), open it to competitive tendering, drive down costs, aim for minimum satisfactory quality and maximum profit, because, as we all know, profitability means efficiency! Superior quality usually means greater cost and, hence, less profit.

So, one organisation operating one contract with the aim of providing a patient-led service becomes 46 contracts, to be competed for by tendering, where the lowest price offered has an advantage and where, if you want to make a quick buck at taxpayers’ expense, go right ahead!

The telephone lines are not, generally, staffed by qualified medical practitioners. If you think you are ringing a specialist medic of some sort when contacting 111 you are sadly mistaken. There is no guarantee, even, that there will be medically trained personnel available or even on the payroll of the organisation responsible for the particular service you are contacting. In order to be able to tender for contracts and offer a price that might enable them to be successful, NHS Direct made thousands of nurses and qualified staff redundant. When you call, you get someone who is in front of a computer screen. The 111 website says the staff members are ‘fully trained’; what it doesn’t say is what, exactly, they are fully trained in! You can be sure it isn’t any form of health care profession, mostly.

The National Health Service; the clue is in the name. It should be national, it should be a service not a profit-driven enterprise and it should promote health, not line the pockets of the already rich making more money on the back of misery, pain and desperation.

The problem, however, is not with the idea of a 111 type service. After all, that’s what NHS Direct was, albeit with a less useful telephone number. The problem is one of ideology.

The Tories believe that private companies, driven by profit, are more efficient. Indeed, in an unfettered business world where there are no safeguards for health, no protections for employees and unions are weakened to the point of impotence, they are right. In such circumstances the profit motive drives down wages, drives down material costs and drives up selling prices, all for the purpose of maximising entrepreneurial profit at the expense of others. This is a vision likely to prove too orgasmic a fantasy for your average Tory, but make no mistake, this is the ultimate objective. This is why, over the years, unions arose to defend the rights of workers, to prevent exploitation in the name of profit. It is also why this government is waging a war on employment rights, making it easier to sack people, and, in its latest attack on the average worker, making it costly to seek redress for unfair dismissal through the Employment Tribunal.

Our NHS is not about profit and privatisation but health and well-being, putting patients’ interests at the forefront. In the current climate the emphasis is on cutting – cutting the deficit, cutting the need for the government to borrow. To achieve this, the government is intent on cutting public spending, cutting down ‘big government’, cutting out ‘waste’ etc. As a consequence, it is cutting down employment rights, cutting benefits for the poorest in the community, cutting down access to justice. However, it is not cutting one thing – profiteering at the expense of the ordinary person, the taxpayer, by the rich and already wealthy, the bankers bonuses.

The Tory Party agenda is to privatise as much of the Health Service as possible. It has begun it already and will continue to do it for as long as it can get away with it; for as long as the British population lets it do so. What will you do?

The Rule of 17

Haiku is a Japanese poetry form. It has a set of accepted rules and guidance as to content and form which do not easily translate culturally or linguistically. Traditionally,  haiku have 17 syllables, although it is not possible to directly compare the semantics of Japanese with other languages. In English, these poems are usually written in three lines consisting of 5, 7 and 5 syllables respectively. These are a few of my first attempts at what is a much trickier art form than it first appears! Your comments would be much appreciated.

IQ

High IQ Haiku means membership of Mensa, but nights on your own.

I Amb History

Iambus I am, a rising rhythmic two-step; modern world averse.

Domestic

I need to control, take over your petty life. It’s for your own good!