Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

Update 498. Make 2025 The Year Of The Terf. #BeMorePorcupine

A reminder that, as you can see, we are not that far short of Update 500 !!! 🥳🎉🎈

So please get me your five favourite films of all time and Update 500 will just involve film clips from the top 5 films according to your votes. Please rank them from 1 to 5. Thanks to those who have already voted.

I have chosen my five but, after much deliberation, Monty Python and the Holy Grail just fell outside my list - so I am going to feature it here 😆

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL MY READERS 🎈🎉

A Review of 2024 on this Substack

I look here at the 6 most popular updates of the year in terms of viewing figures.

No 1

Thanks, it has to be said, to a cross-post by Glinner, way out in front was my analysis of the party manifestoes for the Irish General Election.

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/irelands-call

No 2

My report on Sheffield Let Women Speak when Kellie-Jay was attacked again

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/stand-with-posie

No 3

No 3 is a bit of Mary Poppins also featuring Kellie-Jay and EDI Jester discussing (separately) ‘What is our goal?’.

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/a-spoonful-of-sugar

No 4

No 4 is Day One of the For Women Scotland case from your reporter live at the Supreme Court 😁

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/for-women-scotland-day-one

No 5

No 5 is my discussion of ‘The Myth of Gender’ ( a topic I am still working on - watch this space!).

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-gender

No 6

Last but not least is my celebration of the 16 Party of Women candidates who stood in the General Election. I dubbed them ‘The Magnificent Sixteen’ 😁

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-magnificent-sixteen?utm_source=publication-search

Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.

Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.

My Assistant admiring our Christmas Tree 😄

Free Speech

Free Speech is virtually a perpetual issue on this substack. Let’s have our favourite Lord Justice Sedley quote one more time in 2024!

Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:

'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers' Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.

From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas.'

Poppy Wood in The Telegraph(Phillipson tried to pull plug on new free speech law days after election 28 December) reports:

High Court documents show Ms Phillipson received a briefing from Department for Education (DfE) officials in July on how she could go about revoking new laws promoting academic freedom.

She took the university sector by surprise when she announced on July 26 that she was shelving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, just six days before it was due to come into force.

Ms Phillipson said at the time that she had chosen to “stop” the flagship Tory legislation before it was set to be implemented on Aug 1 “in order to consider options, including its repeal”.

However, court documents obtained by The Telegraph reveal the Education Secretary had already sought advice weeks before that on how to scrap the main elements of the free speech legislation.

In a briefing addressed to Ms Phillipson on July 8, the Monday after Labour swept to power, DfE officials said: “We understand you do not wish to implement the main provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

“A decision is needed on whether to allow the commencement of the provisions of the Act that are due to come into force on Aug 1, or to pause.”

The DfE document informed Ms Phillipson that failure to intervene over the Act would mean the legislation automatically going live at the start of August.

It said that “therefore, immediate decisions are needed to revoke these regulations following which you can consider different options relating to repeal of the Act”.

It suggests Ms Phillipson set the wheels in motion to shelve the flagship Tory legislation just days after the general election, in her first major act as Education Secretary.

The Telegraph understands it came after she consulted Jewish groups and other interested parties over their concerns about the legislation while still in the Opposition.

Days after she entered office, DfE officials advised Ms Phillipson on various courses of action for scaling back the free speech legislation.

Documents show the Education Secretary was told she should “consider whether you wish to repeal the Act, in part or in full, or leave it on the statute book without the main provisions commenced”.

Widespread backlash

The Act, which received royal assent in May 2023, would have introduced a new complaints scheme for academics, students and visiting speakers concerned about free speech violations on campus.

It would have also allowed victims of “cancel culture” at universities to seek compensation through a statutory tort.

Ms Phillipson’s decision to mothball the laws has received widespread backlash from academics, who argue it leaves them vulnerable to being “hounded, censured and silenced” for holding legitimate views some may deem offensive.

Sources close to the discussions told The Telegraph they were furious the Act has been painted as a “Tory hate charter” designed to stoke the culture wars.

The Education Secretary insisted the move followed concerns from Jewish groups that the Act could have created a platform for hate speech on campus.

Critics have branded the suggestion a red herring, insisting that the legislation would only have strengthened protections for free speech “within the law”.

Ms Phillipson now faces legal action over her decision to pull the plug on the Act, after the Free Speech Union was granted permission to appeal the move.

A judicial review hearing is set to take place in the High Court on Jan 23.

High Court documents seen by The Telegraph show Ms Phillipson was also warned by officials prior to pausing the Act that it would fly in the face of feedback from gender-critical feminists, who had voiced their support for the legislation.

In a separate ministerial briefing following the general election, Ms Phillipson was told that “each option under consideration will have differing impacts on those who share particular protected characteristics”.

The document handed to the Education Secretary said: “Although some minorities, in particular Jewish groups, have expressed concern about the impact of the Act and its potential to enable harmful and offensive speech and protest, others with protected characteristics have been supportive of it (for example, gender critical feminists), and argue that free speech protections are important for minority groups.”

Series of rows

It added that stakeholder meetings highlighted that threats to free speech on campus were “real and continuing”, with the impact falling “more significantly on women and specific ethnic minority groups… particularly acute in relation to discussions of sex/gender”.

The Act was drawn up after a series of rows over the so-called cancellation of academics and students because of their views.

They include Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor who resigned from Sussex University in 2021 after what she described as a witch hunt over her views on transgender issues.

The Free Speech Union has argued that Ms Phillipson’s decision to pause the legislation went beyond her ministerial powers.

In submissions to the High Court, it suggested the move granted her a mechanism for kicking the Act in the long grass indefinitely, without needing primary legislation to formally repeal the free speech laws.

The group also claimed Ms Phillipson acted unlawfully by removing protections for “people of certain protected groups”, such as “gender-critical persons or those who espouse minority political views”.

In a legal document confirming permission to appeal the move, a High Court judge said that even if the Secretary of State intended only to “pause” the Act while options were being considered, “it is arguable that it was insufficient for the purposes of s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to proceed on the basis that no significant impacts were foreseen”.

Ms Phillipson’s defence is being spearheaded by Sir James Eadie KC, the Government’s most senior lawyer.

In documents submitted to the High Court, Sir James and Jennifer Thelen, a barrister at law firm 39 Essex Chambers, argued that the Education Secretary was allowed to pause the Act despite it receiving royal assent.

They claimed that in doing so, Ms Phillipson was simply upholding the current status quo around free speech laws.

The lawyers also contested the Free Speech Union’s calls for the High Court to nullify Ms Phillipson’s decision, which would effectively render the Act as having been in place since Aug 1.

They said this would result in a “scramble [among universities] to produce the remaining guidance and would expose third parties to liabilities in the intervening period”.

Ms Phillipson is understood to have been overwhelmed by the strength of feeling from academics, and is now considering reinstating the Act in a stripped-down version.

Prof Arif Ahmed, who was appointed to oversee the free speech complaints scheme as the Office for Students’ first director of academic freedom, is expected to keep his job.

It comes despite initial concerns from Ms Phillipson over direct ministerial appointments to the Offfice The Telegraph understands.

Prof Ahmed was appointed by Rishi Sunak, the former Conservative prime minister.

A Department for Education spokesman said: “We do not comment on live legal proceedings.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/28/bridget-phillipson-university-free-speech-law/

UK - Puberty Blockers

Barry Wall in his role of Warrior Teacher discusses opposition within the Labour Party to Wes Streeting’s ban on puberty blockers.

I have written to Mr Streeting to ask him to reconsider the question of a clinical trial. Please feel free to use or adapt this letter if you want to write to him. I will, of course, let you know if and when I get a response.

His e-mail address by the way is wes.streeting.mp@parliament.uk

I am not a constituent of yours but I am writing to you in your role as Secretary of State for Health.

…

Firstly, many congratulations for continuing the temporary ban on the provision of puberty blockers to children with (so called) gender dysphoria and for now making that an indefinite ban to be reviewed in 2027.

However I am extremely concerned at the indication that clinical trials involving children will now take place. As explained below, I do not think there can be any ethical justification for such trials.

An expert in the area, Andy Lewis has examined this matter:

'In light of the Cass Review, the new use of puberty blockers for children is now pretty much restricted to those enrolled in clinical trials in the UK. The Cass Review underscored the lack of consensus and the significant gaps in knowledge surrounding the use of puberty blockers, prompting a more cautious and scientifically robust approach to their application, if they were ever to be used in the future. There are currently no trials, just plans to design and start them.

Before any clinical trials for puberty blockers proceed post-Cass Review, there are essential clinical questions that must be addressed. These questions are critical to ensuring that any trial is ethical and can help inform future clinical decisions. These are the questions that must be answered before any ethical trial can take place.

1. Identifying Persistent Trans Identities

Which children will maintain their trans identities into adulthood (if this is likely to happen at all)? This is fundamental as only those likely to persist should be considered for radical treatments due to the profound and potentially destructive consequences of these medical interventions. High confidence in predicting persistence is crucial to avoid imposing unnecessary treatments on children who might naturally desist.

2. Alternative Interventions for Adolescent Distress

What other interventions can alleviate the distress leading to trans ideation? We know most children presenting at gender clinics present also with complex psychological needs and conditions, including autism, trauma, and distress over their emerging sexuality. Trans identities may be a coping mechanism for these conditions. Understanding which psychological treatments are beneficial and for whom they work is essential. Current conversion therapy bans threaten this research, potentially stifling clinical interventions that could relieve distress without resorting to life-altering medications.

3. Impact of Halting Natural Puberty

What are the long-term effects of stopping natural puberty on brain and body development? Preliminary evidence suggests potential losses in maturity and developmental issues. Detailed studies are necessary to understand these impacts fully.

4. Clinical Purpose of Puberty Blockers

What is the clinical purpose of using puberty blockers in this cohort? The Cass Review highlighted a lack of consensus. Whether intended as “time to think,” to reduce psychiatric distress, or for cosmetic reasons, each potential usage has significant problems. Evidence suggests children don’t use the time to reconsider options, and the “cosmetic window” is very narrow.

5. Safety and Effectiveness of Adult Cross-Sex Hormones

Is the subsequent use of adult cross-sex hormones safe and effective? Puberty blockers are not standalone treatments but part of a pathway. Comprehensive evaluations of the overall clinical benefits and risks are necessary.

6. Long-Term Regret Rates

What are the long-term regret rates? While this may correlate with question one, even persistent 'trans identities' can experience regret due to factors like loss of sexual function.

7. Methodological Quality of Trials

Any trial must have the methodological quality and size to address serious clinical questions. If trials cannot resolve treatment effects from confounders, and be generalizable (for example), the risks to participants are unjustifiable. Low-quality trials with serious methodological issues must be avoided.

8. Comprehensive Understanding of Past Usage and Outcomes

Before any new trials start, we must ensure that any lessons can be drawn from historical use. This might involve much better follow up of adults who took puberty blockers as children. So far, attempts to collect this data from clinics has been met with resistance. Hillary Cass found most centres refused to help her form the linkage between child records and adult records so that outcomes could be recorded against treatments.

Ethical Considerations

For a clinical trial of puberty blockers to be ethical, it must ensure:

1. Autonomy: How can children consent to trials when so much is unknown? Potential harm to future sexual well-being and enjoyment, which they cannot fully grasp, complicates consent.

2. Non-Maleficence: Clinicians have noted that the puberty blocker/cross-sex hormone pathway can lead to permanent loss of sexual function, infertility, developmental issues, and even cancer. Do these harms outweigh the benefits?

3. Beneficence: Treatments must provide significant benefits. Do puberty blockers dramatically improve outcomes, justifying their use over waiting until adulthood for cross-sex hormones?

4. Justice: Is this an appropriate use of medical resources? Are we diverting attention from more fundamental needs like better mental healthcare for all children?

For these reasons, I cannot envisage any trial being a just and ethical experiment to impose on distressed children. The huge difficulties here for me highlight the true nature of the use of puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are not being used for meaningful clinical purposes but are seen by some as ideological treatments. They symbolize a sacrament–a ritualistic baptismal entry into the world of “trans” identities.

Given the significant ethical and clinical concerns, we must remain vigilant. We must challenge proposals for such trials and ensure that vested interests do not compromise the well-being of distressed children. It is imperative to demand thorough answers to these critical questions before considering ethical approval for puberty blocker trials.'

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/what-would-an-ethical-clinical-trial?publication_id=225618&r=1v403b

See also the paper from the parents' group, Our Duty:

The Impossibility of an Ethical Clinical Trial on Puberty Blockers | Our Duty

In light of this can you please confirm that your department will now consider this ethical question and I hope that the conclusion will be that a trial cannot possibly proceed.

I would be happy to discuss this further with you if required.

Thank you for considering this and please acknowledge safe receipt.

Yours sincerely

Please let me know if you write to Wes Streeting and let me know any response you get.

New Zealand - A Poem And A New Year Message

Here is our friend, Katrina Biggs

No Such Thing As Trans

Kat Highsmith on her substack addresses this subject which is closely related to what we have discussed above, of course.

What We Are Doing Is Working Because “Trans” Is A Fraud

Just Hold the Line

Dec 28, 2024

This kind of makes sense because neither exist.

Hopefully everyone had a Merry Christmas and is looking forward to the New Year!

Now is the perfect opportunity to reflect on this year’s victories, and they should serve as reminders that TERFs will win this because our arguments just need to be heard to prevail.

They pervade the culture and conversation so that everyone realizes that we are right…since we are. Subsequently, defenders of the “trans” agenda must work relentlessly to shut any and all criticism down.

The ideas have an impact whenever they are written, posted, or published anywhere. [ Dusty - I would add ‘spoken’ to this list] That is why simply holding the line works.

A remarkable recent victory is the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw its proposed rule to prohibit schools from banning men from women’s sports.

The administration had proposed the rule in April 2023, inviting the public to comment. It said on Friday that it had received more than 150,000 public replies.

Many of the comments were against the proposed rule, the administration wrote in its Federal Register filing. That, along with multiple pending lawsuits related to gender identity and sports, led the administration "not to regulate on this issue at this time."

After heavily promoting “trans” rights and even allowing Dylan Mulvaney to interview the President (anybody remember that?), the Biden administration has finally realized that allowing men into women’s sports is a massive mistake because normal people realize how idiotic it is.

This is just the beginning of the beginning (not the end yet) because if “trans” women are women, as we have been told, then why can’t they play women’s sports?

They can’t play women’s sports because they’re men.

The full piece is here:

https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/what-we-are-doing-is-working-because?publication_id=1442066&post_id=153707802&isFreemail=true&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

As Kat says, hold the line!!

Stephen Fry

In a recent interview on Triggernometry, Stephen Fry seemed to distance himself from Stonewall. In yet another forensic investigation on his substack, The Secret Gender Files Malcolm Clark explains precisely why Mr Fry cannot be trusted.

The Shameful Secrets of Stephen Fry.

Stephen Fry refuses to acknowledge his role in enabling Stonewall's extremism. Worse still he continues to promote the same disturbing attitude to child sexuality that animates the LGBTQ+ lobby.

Dec 28, 2024

Stephen Fry’s recent comments criticising Stonewall have been seized upon by many as a welcome sign the mood has changed on trans issues. The reasoning goes that if even a “national treasure” like Fry is distancing himself from the LGBTQ+ lobby the defeat of trans extremism cannot be far away.

Dream on.

The temptation to celebrate is understandable. The failure of gay celebrities to take a stand against the criminally insane demands of the trans lobby has been one of the most shameful aspects of this whole debacle. You can count on one hand the number of lesbian or gay household names who have dared to stand up for women’s single sex spaces and against the scandal of puberty blockers. In fact …on a three fingered hand. Other than tennis legend Martina Navratilova, actor James Dreyfus and news presenter Andrew Doyle I can’t think of any others.

From Elton John’s financing of the Netflix movie about Peter Tatchell to the self-satisfied bloviating of Sam Smith, Sandi Toksvig, Graham Norton, Alan Cumming and a rogue’s gallery of other cowards, gay celebrities have exhibited the kind of acumen normally associated with a certain type of over-fed fowl who make complacent gurgling noises as Christmas looms into view.

Fry’s criticism of Stonewall is though not the turning point it may seem. His allegedly heretical comments on the Triggernometry Podcast came in response to a question submitted by gay activist Levi Pay. The question did not pull its punches.

“I watched as this organisation, which I used to love, shifted to arguing for the medicalisation of gender non-conforming children. It now portrays lesbians who wish to exclude male people from their dating pool as being equivalent to racists.”

Fry’s answer certainly left the impression he supported this characterisation.

“I agree completely with Levi Pay,” Fry said

'I think it's shameful and sad...it's got stuck in a terrible, terrible quagmire, so he is right.'

Yet the impression Fry agreed with Pay was undermined by his response to the opening line of the question. Asked how he could “in all conscience” continue to support Stonewall and “its divisive stance on trans rights” Fry began by challenging the assumption he did back the charity.

“Do I? I am not sure I do support them.'

This was so disingenuous as to be deceptive. For years Fry has offered uncritical backing to both Stonewall and to trans extremism.

After a detailed examination of Mr Fry’s history, Malcolm concludes:

Fry should not be allowed to walk away unscathed from the mess he helped create. If Stonewall is in a quagmire it was his misogyny, cowardice and deeply dodgy views about children and their “sexuality” that helped put it there.

And, if you want to know why Malcolm arrives at that conclusion, I’m afraid you’ll just have to read it. The full piece is here:

https://malcolmrichardclark.substack.com/p/the-shameful-secrets-of-stephen-fry?publication_id=231438&post_id=153434629&isFreemail=false&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Endpiece by Liz

#BeMorePorcupine

#LetWomenSpeak

#Grassroots Army

#GenderIdeologyIsEvil

#KeepOnTerfing

#GenderEnders

The next update will hopefully be on New Year’s Day, Terven.

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free or paid or buy me a coffee, like and comment.