Dear readers, I think I can just about squeeze this one into one part!! But it is long!
How could we have forgotten her? No 37 in the Leading Female Season is Glenda Jackson in John Schlesinger’s Sunday Bloody Sunday.
Set in London, the film tells the story of a middle-aged gay Jewish doctor, Daniel Hirsh (Peter Finch), and a divorced woman in her mid-30s, Alex Greville (Glenda Jackson), who are both involved in an open love triangle with sculptor Bob Elkin (Murray Head), a younger man in his mid-20s. Not only are Daniel and Alex each aware that Bob is seeing the other but they know one another through mutual friends. Despite this, they are willing to put up with the situation through fear of losing Bob, who switches freely between them. Bob has his own coterie of artist friends who support his work, which consists of glass fountains!?
You get the drift. The film was released in 1971 but, basically, we’re in the Swinging Sixties. At least nobody thinks they are the opposite sex!!
Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Labour
I reported on the latest Queens’ Speech here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-french-lieutenants-woman-part-ce5
Also in that episode, Clive and Dennis were very pleased that the LGB Alliance had finally met with the Shadow Women and Equalities Minister, Anneliese Dodds. And then…
Alexander Butler in The Independent ( Labour plans to ‘simplify’ process to change gender 20 May) reports:
Labour is set to make it easier to change gender [ Dusty - which you can’t do, of course. Plus it’s sex not gender ] by allowing a single family doctor to sign off on the decision under plans to “simplify” the process.
The policy would include scrapping a panel of doctors and lawyers that approve gender recognition certificates to stop the “futile and dehumanising parts” of changing gender.
A source said the party wanted to make the process “less medicalised” but added that the plans would retain the involvement of a doctor, as reported by The Times.
Anneliese Dodds, the shadow women and equalities secretary, told the newspaper: “We want to see the process for gender recognition modernised, while protecting single-sex spaces for biological women.[ Dusty - run that by me again!].
“This means stripping out the futile and dehumanising parts of the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate, while retaining important safeguards.”
Labour said it had not yet been decided whether the medical professional would be a GP or a gender specialist, with the issue likely to go to consultation if the party wins the next election.
To obtain a gender recognition certificate currently someone has to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, have been living in their affirmed gender for two years and intend to live in that gender for the rest of their life.
The full article is here:
Excellent piece from Helen Joyce analysing this:
Helen Joyce in The Daily Mail (Labour Party's proposal to simplify changing gender would make transitioning as easy as getting a prescription, writes Helen Joyce of Sex Matters charity 20 May):
The word ‘simplify’ is a popular one in politics. But yesterday when the Labour Party announced plans to ‘simplify’ the Gender Recognition Act, my heart skipped a beat.
If enacted, Sir Keir Starmer’s plan would represent one of the most dangerous interventions in public life for a generation. Introduced in 2004, the Act allows adults to change their legally recorded sex for some purposes.
Currently, this requires a certificate which can only be awarded by an expert panel based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
To date, there have been just 6,000 such certificates handed out across the UK and those who have them probably make up only a few per cent of the country’s trans population.[ Dusty - I don’t think these certificates should exist at all but we can return to that at a later date!!].
However, under Sir Keir Starmer’s proposals, a transition could be signed off by a single GP without any gender dysphoria diagnosis.
In other words, Labour’s plan does not just simplify the process of changing gender, it makes it as easy as getting a prescription.
My view is that this amounts to gender self-ID: the principle of people being allowed to pick their legal gender with no medical diagnosis, something Labour has repeatedly said it no longer supports.
The party’s plans would essentially allow men to gain the legal status of women with no safeguards.
There are several reasons this policy is dangerous. Firstly, our GP services are already at breaking point. In the second half of last year, more than 21 million people waited more than 22 days to see their GP. It is ludicrous to further burden this flailing frontline service.
Secondly, what if a GP decided not to hand out a gender recognition certificate?
Would they, like so many others before them, be labelled a ‘transphobe’ and hounded out of their job or become the victim of a social media pile-on?
Last month’s landmark Cass Review found evidence of GPs being ‘pressurised to prescribe hormones’ to their patients. Why do we expect the fanatical trans lobby to behave any better this time?
Helen Joyce
Labour Party Chair Anneliese Dodds
And then there’s the question of public safety. If you’re about to hand a man a piece of paper that will make it easier for him to claim he has the right to access women’s toilets, changing rooms and rape crisis centres, you must, at the very least, have undertaken the most stringent of background checks.
Can a GP realistically be expected to do this?
There is also another side to Labour’s proposal which I fear has been overlooked: it could remove a spouse’s right of consent if their partner elects to change gender.
Under Labour’s plan, spouses wouldn’t even be warned their partner was seeking to transition. This can’t be right.
For my book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, I interviewed a number of so-called ‘trans-widows’. These are the women whose husbands have transitioned, leaving their marriage and family in tatters.
The tales I heard of men spending the family wealth on wigs, breast enhancements and dresses with seemingly no concern for their wives or children were heart breaking.
Labour sees this policy as a cost-free way to peacock their inclusivity credentials.
They would be wise to remember that Theresa May tried the same thing in 2018 before the Tories realised how dangerous the policy was and binned it in 2020.
Women have fought for centuries for the right to feel safe. Labour’s new ploy to ‘simplify’ the Gender Recognition Act will undo all that work, with potentially thousands of men given a piece of paper that makes them think they have licence to roam female-only spaces.
Sir Keir’s plan isn’t just naive, it’s downright dangerous.
Roz Adams
Wonderful and very important news that Roz Adams has won her tribunal case against The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Given what is said in the judgment, it should be clear that Mr Wadhwa, the larping man in charge of the Centre, should resign.
Michael Foran in The Critic ( Why Roz Adams won 20 May) writes:
Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre conducted a “heresy hunt” against an employee who believes sex matters for rape victims. An employment tribunal has found it unlawfully harassed and constructively dismissed her via a disciplinary process “reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka”.
When Roz Adams joined the Centre in 2021 she was enthusiastic about trans inclusion. She holds what the Tribunal described as “generally trans positive but also sex realist” views: that gender identity is important to some people and that they should be treated with dignity and respect, but that sometimes sex matters, particularly in a rape crisis centre.
She became gradually aware that senior management within ERCC believed that there is no such thing as biological sex, and that a person can become a woman “simply by asserting that they now identify as a woman”. These views had a significant impact on how ERCC operated.
In 2021, the Centre advertised for a new CEO, relying on a provision in the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the job to women only under sex-based occupational requirements. ERCC appointed Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman. This caused controversy because Mridul is male, and does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate. The relevant exception would have permitted the exclusion of a trans woman even in possession of a GRC. The restriction stated by ERCC did not necessarily have that effect, but certainly purported to exclude anyone who, like Mridul, was legally male.
Many women, including rape victims, contacted ERCC to express concern. Some took issue with the fact that the centre was appointing males at all, arguing that a women-only rape crisis centre should appoint only biological females. Others were concerned with whether those who request female-only care would be granted it.
On one occasion a woman in her 60s approached the centre to take part in group work. She had kept secret for 40 years that she had been sexually assaulted and wanted to meet other survivors as part of her recovery. She asked if they could reassure her that this would be women-only. She was advised that ERCC is trans inclusive, and when she raised concerns about her need for a female-only service she was told that she was not suitable for their service.
Women who requested female-only care were turned away and there was a policy never to refer them to Beira’s Place, a rape crisis centre founded by JK Rowling which offers a female-only service. Those who wrote to ERCC about female-only care were classed as bigots and their emails were stored in a folder called “Hate emails”.
Roz Adams expressed concern internally with these policies, warning against giving ambiguous, misleading or incomplete answers to rape victims asking about the sex of their assigned counsellor.
This escalated when one of the counsellors, AB, began to identify as non-binary, accompanied with a name change to a traditionally male-sounding name. Adams and her colleagues asked for guidance about how to answer service users who wanted to know if AB was male. They were told to tell rape victims requesting female-only care that ERCC does not employ men.
Then the situation Adams warned of arose: a service user who had been assigned AB as a counsellor emailed requesting to know whether AB was a man or a woman. The Tribunal concluded that Adams was right to view this as a request for information about the biological sex of AB, not about gender identity and that she had been put in a difficult position by the refusal of her Line Manager to give her clear instructions on what was obviously always going to be a difficult situation. She forwarded the email to her manager, copying in AB and asking for guidance:
‘Hi Kim and [AB] I am not sure how you would want me to respond to this? Can I get some guidance? My experience is there are many different ways trans people would prefer to address this question that feel right and respectful to them whilst still answering the concerns of the SU. My instinct is to say
Hi Thanks for asking. [AB] is a woman at birth who now identifies as non binary.’
What followed was a ‘completely spurious and mishandled’ disciplinary process, culminating in Adams being constructively dismissed. Her offence? Suggesting that ERCC respond to a rape victim requesting female-only care with the information she needed to consent to counselling. This was recast as a suggestion that ERCC reveal private information about AB to service users.
The Tribunal found that this was not the real reason this investigation was launched. It was a pretext for what the Tribunal described as “a heresy hunt” conducted by Mridul Wadhwa and other members of the senior management team. The belief that sex is real and that it might be important in a rape crisis centre was deemed transphobic by ERCC. The Tribunal concluded that Mridul Wadha had an agenda to “cleanse the organisation” of those who did not adhere to an institutional view which was “at the very extreme end of gender identity theory”. It concluded that “there is absolutely no need for a Rape Crisis Centre to be seen to take such a stance”.
Despite this, the Tribunal was also at pains to stress that it was not its role to choose between the rival beliefs, and said that the conflict between them “does not in any way require the law to come down on one side or other of the philosophical debate”. In one sense, this is perfectly orthodox. The Equality Act is built upon a foundation of pluralism and diversity. Tolerance of opposing viewpoints is integral to this. The Tribunal is therefore correct to note that “the law imposes a duty on both sides to tolerate each other in the workplace”.
But it is clear that the law does recognise the importance of biological sex in a whole host of contexts, but particularly in relation to sexual violence. Women have an explicit right to request single-sex intimate care and examination. Deception as to sex can vitiate consent to sexual intercourse. The default position in common law is that sex is fixed by birth and immutable in fact, even if it may be changed in law via the Gender Recognition Act.
This judgment does not make sense if one is genuinely agnostic between what the Tribunal described as “gender identity theory” and sex realism.
The correct application of the law is impossible if courts and tribunals refuse to abandon neutrality when the law requires them to. This judgment does not make sense if one is genuinely agnostic between what the Tribunal described as “gender identity theory” and sex realism. The Tribunal agreed with Naomi Cunningham, the barrister representing Roz Adams that “this is one of these cases where sex does matter in that the respondents are a Rape Crisis Centre”. That conclusion is only possible if one first accepts that there is such a thing as biological sex and that it sometimes matters. That is compatible with treating all employees with tolerance. The opposite view, in its extreme form, is not.
The version of gender identity theory embraced by ERCC (described by the Tribunal as “dogmatic”, “extreme”, and “hardline”) is one that is not compatible with the requirements of tolerance. A central feature of this worldview is that dissent is transphobic and must be quashed. The Tribunal itself found that Mridul Wadhwa believed that all sex realist views were transphobic and that firing employees with those views was important for achieving inclusivity. Those beliefs are not compatible with tolerance and, in this extreme form, may not even be worthy of protection under the Equality Act. It is not incumbent upon a court or tribunal to remain neutral between those beliefs and the beliefs of Roz Adams, described by the Tribunal as “generally trans positive but also sex realist”.
Tolerance is important, but it cannot require a court or tribunal to affect neutrality between sex realism and gender identity theory in contexts when the law requires one to notice and respect the reality of sex. This tribunal clearly did take a side. It followed the law and came down on the side of the “careful, credible and reliable witness” who was putting the needs of rape victims at the heart of her work. An extreme worldview that holds that people like Roz Adams should be hounded out of employment in the name of inclusivity is not compatible with the tolerance required of our law.
https://thecritic.co.uk/why-roz-adams-won/
Excellent commentary on this by Andrew Doyle on his substack:
Men do not belong in women’s rape crisis centres
How did we reach the point where “gender identity” became prioritised over sex in the support of victims of sexual assault?
MAY 21, 2024
If there is one space that surely requires single-sex provisions, it’s a rape crisis centre. In what world would a man, however he identifies, be convinced that a refuge for women who have been sexually assaulted is the place for him? It’s the kind of notion that back in the pre-woke era nobody would have believed was possible, like the police investigating citizens for “non-crime” or a leading school in London segregating children by skin colour.
Yesterday the judgement was handed down in the constructive dismissal case of Roz Adams, a former support counsellor at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). Although never opposing the rights of trans-identified people, Adams had always understood that the reality of biological sex is paramount when it comes to supporting those who have suffered violence at the hands of men. Having discovered that the management team at the ERCC favoured the ideological view that sex isn’t real, and that “gender identity” is all that matters, Adams had raised some entirely reasonable concerns.
In particular, she had suggested that victims of rape ought to be given clear information regarding the sex of their counsellors. After all, what would happen if a victim were to ask for female-only support? According to the ERCC management, in such a scenario they were to be reassured that there were no men working there. This created problems when one victim specifically asked Adams to reveal the sex of a “non-binary” counsellor, and she asked her managers whether she should respond according to biological sex or “gender identity”. That Adams sought clarity on this issue was all it took to see a disciplinary procedure launched against her.
This is all reminiscent of the NHS policy known as “Annex B”. I have written previously about these dangerous guidelines which resulted in police being misinformed during an investigation into a sexual assault on a hospital ward. In accordance with Annex B, staff told the police that a rape could not have taken place because there were no men on the ward, even though a male who identified as female was accommodated there at the time. So we have a situation where an investigation into a serious crime was being misdirected in order to satisfy this esoteric ideology, and this was being enabled by the NHS.
Astonishing as it may seem, the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has been run by a trans-identified male called Mridul Wadhwa since 2021. That he doesn’t have a Gender Recognition Certificate ought to be beside the point. It should go without saying that victims of rape are individuals at their most vulnerable, and it is entirely reasonable that they would expect not to be in the vicinity of men in the aftermath of such a horrific experience, irrespective of how they might identify.
That Wadhwa applied for the post at all shows the extent of the entitlement that drives this movement, and that he was appointed tells us all we need to know about how far the tentacles of gender identity ideology have reached. While debates about hospital wards, toilet facilities and sporting events are maddening enough, when it comes to this particular issue we find ourselves thrown headlong into the realm of absurdist dystopia. I’m all for rational and moderate discussion with those who take a fundamentally different view, but on this particular issue I would be tempted to shake my opponent and say: “You think a man should be in charge of a refuge for female victims of rape?! What the hell is the matter with you?”
Thankfully, the court decisions keep falling the right way, reminding us that our society still retains a few scraps of sanity. Most famously we’ve had the cases of Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix, Allison Bailey, Denise Fahmy and Rachel Meade. Of course, there are innumerable other people who have been monstered and hounded out of their jobs for their gender-critical views who have not had the means or the stamina to put themselves through lengthy court proceedings, but it is reassuring that those who do generally succeed. Yet just imagine the outcomes of these cases had our judiciary been as ideologically captured as most other of our major institutions. This is an eventuality that activists have long sought but, fortunately, have so far failed to achieve.
Much ink has been spilled on how we got to this preposterous situation. My book The New Puritans offers an overview of how so many institutions fell to this regressive ideology, but even having written at length on the subject I never fail to be surprised at the lunacy of it all. How can it be that it was left to a novelist to set up a women-only centre for rape victims in Scotland? If it weren’t for J. K. Rowling and her founding and funding of Beira’s Place, there would be nowhere for many victims to turn.
And yet the ERCC refused to refer victims who sought single-sex services to Beira’s Place, which would strongly suggest that their ideology matters more to them than the people supposedly in their care. This is confirmed in the findings of the tribunal, which can be read in full here. Consider what the aforementioned “non-binary” member of staff at the ERCC had to say on hearing about Rowling’s new project. She had written an email on 14 December 2022 to all staff under the heading “Bad News in Collective Care”.
“Hey everyone just writing to acknowledge the really terrible news that came yesterday about JK Rowling’s new Centre.
It landed really heavy with me, and I wonder if it did for some of you too.
I wonder if it would be useful to have a moment to get together (online ofc) to talk about it and rage about it and express whatever other feelings come up.
If everyone would like that reply to this or my SLACK message and I’ll set up a time.
Big love to you all in the face of this total festive stinker.”
At least what has been described as a “heresy hunt” against Adams is now over, and the forces of decency and sense prevailed. The judgement could not be more damning. The disciplinary process against Adams is described as “completely spurious” and “deeply flawed” and “unfortunately a classic of its kind, somewhat reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka”.
In all of this, we should remind ourselves how little the general public support gender identity ideology. For all the nonsense claims of a Tory “war on woke”, the overwhelming majority of the public understand that this government has presided over a period in which “gender identity” has been allowed to take precedence over truth. A recent report by Sex Matters – Women’s Services: a Sector Silenced – shows that 84% of British people say that women who have been the victims of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence should have access to female-only services. The only surprise in these statistics is that the figure is not higher.
Yet we have enabled activists like Wadhwa to make important decisions that fly in the face of popular consensus. On his appearance on The Guilty Feminist podcast in August 2021, Wadhwa was asked about those victims of sexual crimes who would rather not be in the company of men, trans-identified or otherwise. This was his response:
“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”
He went on to say that these women should “reframe” their trauma and develop “a more positive relationship with it”. In other words, all must defer to the ideology of Wadhwa and his fellow activists. And if this means smearing a few rape victims as “bigots” then so be it.
Such is the nuclear-strength arrogance of those who subscribe to this quasi-religious worldview that they are willing to denounce and shame innocent people even when they are at their most traumatised. Surely the ERCC case must be seen as the moment when gender identity ideology “jumped the shark”. I cannot conceive how it could possibly get any worse – or, as the judgement put it, more Kafkaesque – than female victims being turned away from a rape crisis centre because they don’t wish to be counselled by men.
It is not enough for Wadhwa to resign and for the ERCC to commit to single-sex provisions. This problem is deeply entrenched throughout our society. Enough is enough. We have to ensure that this deranging, toxic and surreal ideology is driven out of our institutions for good.
https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/men-do-not-belong-in-womens-rape
The judgment is here (it’s very long!!):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4R1DAgf3JlR_Ao7ASS18GGE98t6vB-8/view?pli=1
Terf Month
As readers know, I have declared June Terf Month on this substack so let me have your favourite gender critical speeches. Here’s another great one for you:
So, what do you think about rainbow lanyards, Dennis?
Spare me your bloody rainbow lanyards
Only the enemies of gay rights insist on wearing medals for a war they did not fight
MAY 21, 2024
Many are wearing rainbow lanyards this week to signal opposition to Esther McVey’s sensible request that public servants do not bring their politics to work. Many heterosexuals, in particular, will do so out of nothing but good intentions imagining that they are conveying solidarity and courage. From the perspective of the modern gay rights movement many of us see things differently. We see well-intentioned people wearing these lanyards like a medal worn by those who did not fight in the wars for gay rights very many years after that would have mattered. We in the gay rights movement could have done with a few rainbow lanyards back in the dark days of AIDS. Today, these lanyards indicate to us fealty to gender identity ideology, and we note that 80-90% of young patients at the Tavistock told they had the wrong bodies were simply same-sex attracted. A rainbow may not change in nature, but it can change in politics. This rainbow now stands for blocked puberty, crossed hormones, and for the damning verdict of the Cass Review that a live experiment has been conducted on mainly gay youths.
It's an irony that those most engaged in the culture war accuse their opponents of stoking them and seem oblivious of their own enthusiasm for such. It is now 2024 and the idea that a grown gay man or lesbian requires a GP, a politician, or a local councillor to signal “you are safe” via a rainbow lanyard is frankly ludicrous. What are we to think of colleagues who refrain from such virtue proclamations? Is it that society is infested with homophobes in a state of deep cover? We now have a vast architecture of laws and policies that protect same sex attracted people, so the modern reality is that no one is really bringing their homophobia to work, but some are loudly bringing their anti-homophobia to work. Many wearing these lanyards will see this as harmless, but I can say with some authority that being in the middle of a culture war is a dispiriting thing. It is a profoundly disabling notion to be pandered to, it is infantilising to be nannied in this fashion and, speaking candidly, it is always embarrassing to watch tourists try to act like the natives.
Decent straight people wearing these lanyards are most probably unaware that the gay rights movement is presently in a state of deep schism and bitter civil war over gender ideology. Stonewall itself now says the word “homosexual” is old fashioned and that lesbians can have penises. The former CEO compared lesbians who dispute this to “sexual racists”. Online, the words “cis gay man” functions as a prefix and a subterfuge because they are invariably by homophobia that would give a 1980s US televangelist a run for his money. Stonewall and friends like Mermaids enthusiastically embrace the idea that some young people are born with the wrong bodies and require medical correction. These young people are mainly gay and disproportionately autistic, and evidence shows if allowed to grow up they will desist from cross sex ideation. So, we are now at a grim pass in gay rights where some of us on the other side are forced to say, “puberty is a human right and puberty is a gay right”. In all of this, those most likely to embrace this modern gender fad are invariably those most likely to be wearing rainbow lanyards. I don’t expect decent and well-meaning straight people to have kept up with the turmoil and tumult of gay politics, but I do ask that they consider carefully what political symbols mean before they adopt them.
With that in mind, it is worth remarking that we have an equal age of consent, we are post gay marriage and section 28 is no more which rather begs the question, what is the point of these lanyards now? As with so much identity-based grievance politics, the demand for homophobia seems to outstrip supply and this might be a comical instance of benign over correction had what was in effect Gay Conversion 2.0 not occurred at the Tavistock. The paradox of the moment is that it is the enemies of gay rights most likely to be wearing these things. Scottish MSP Maggie Chapman is a good example, rarely seen without a rainbow lanyard, she is on record as advocating for 8-year-old children to “change their gender”. All the evidence suggests such children would overwhelmingly grow up to be gay.
Gay Rights should be more than a petulant gesture to Esther McVey. It should be more than a casual thing around your neck, and it should be more than the special status minority of the moment to be treated like children. Thank you for your support, but this rainbow is now tainted and it’s time to take the lanyards off.
A Scandal For Schools
Interesting piece on a website called LGB Christians.
May 18, 2024
A Scandal for Schools
Image by Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock.com
A teacher’s perspective on why the Cass Review offers hope, not hate
By Rachel Evans*
A PDF Version is available here.
A recent social media post shows a Venn diagram which aims to suggest that ‘1970s homophobia’ and ‘2020s transphobia’ arise from a similar position of bigotry. In the middle of the diagram, where the two circles intersect, are statements such as ‘They’re indoctrinating kids’, ‘It’s not natural’ and ‘Kids will grow out of it.’
1970s Homophobia versus 2020s Transphobia – a very questionable interpretation.
I know plenty of allies in school and church contexts who deeply regret the homophobia of the past, are fully supportive of gay rights, and have made what must feel like a natural progression towards seeing demands from transgender activists as all part of the same movement for social justice.
I also know plenty of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who still bear the scars of having grown up in a climate of widespread discrimination, and who feel strongly that no young person today should experience that.
This Venn diagram is designed to appeal to all of us. It was doing the rounds on social media in early April 2024, following the publication of the Cass Review of NHS Gender Services for young people, and its aim was to suggest that this is history repeating itself, the impact of the report being something akin to that of Section 28.
It’s easy to see how people who want to be supportive allies fall for this comparison. Who wants to be ‘on the wrong side of history’?
But the Cass Review is a watershed moment in challenging such glib conflations, and it’s vital that schools, churches and all other organisations which support young people understand this. In particular, the exposure by Dr Cass of the lack of evidence for the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers, despite their widespread support from those who claim to advocate for ‘trans children’, must give responsible organisations and individuals considerable pause for thought.
For those who still fail to recognise the scandal that has been unfolding in recent years, some of whom are even now seeking to discredit the painstaking research carried out by Cass and her team over a four-year period, when the legal cases follow in due course, as they surely will, it will not be enough to cling to an analogy which must now be exposed for the fallacy that it is.
The full article is here:
https://lgbchristians.org.uk/2024/05/18/a-scandal-for-schools/
Schools Guidance
Excellent piece from Transgender Trend on the new draft RHSE Guidance:
New RSHE draft guidance – is there a problem in schools? (20 May)
We welcome the government’s new RSHE draft guidance which represents a big step forward in getting gender identity ideology out of schools. The public consultation is open till 11 July 2024. The RSHE guidance is statutory and it will be included as a component of Ofsted inspections.
The main important changes to the 2019 guidance are that gender identity ideology must not be taught as fact and sex education must not be taught before the age of nine. This is in response to well-documented evidence of gender identity teaching and explicit age-inappropriate sex resources going into schools via a growing number of external providers.
This is a problem that has been going on for a long time. Transgender Trend produced our guide to external RSHE providers in 2020.
The Department for Education (DfE) also published guidance on implementing the RSHE curriculum in 2020 which should have alerted schools to stop using such resources four years ago:
“Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material.”
We documented which resources from external organisations were in breach of the new DfE (non-statutory) guidance in this post: The new Department for Education RSE guidance: what should schools look out for?
We have also provided parliamentary briefings on the groups going into schools, including Parliamentary briefing: teaching gender identity in the RSE curriculum and Teaching gender ideology in schools.
We have written about the link between ‘LGBT inclusion’ and ‘sex positive’ content here: Identity politics and sex education in schools.
In response to the publication of the new RSHE draft guidance there are already cries of outrage.
Critisisms fall into three main categories: 1. It’s Section 28 all over again 2. If we don’t teach children about sex they’ll learn it from online sources and that will be worse and 3. It isn’t happening, this is just culture wars.
We’ll take each of those points in turn.
1. It’s Section 28 all over again.
It’s the opposite. Gender identity ideology itself could be described as the new Section 28 as it erases same-sex attraction, by replacing ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity.’ One of the groups that will be most protected by the end of this teaching are gay and lesbian pupils, who are disproportionately represented in gender clinic referrals. Schools will have to stop redefining same-sex orientation as ‘same gender’ orientation.
The new draft RSHE guidance does not ban schools teaching about sexual orientation:
“We expect the majority of primary schools to teach about healthy loving relationships. Primary schools have discretion over whether to discuss sexual orientation or families with same-sex parents. At secondary, there should be an equal opportunity to explore the features of stable and healthy same-sex relationships, and secondary schools should ensure that this content is integrated into RSHE programmes of study rather than delivered as a standalone unit or lesson.”
“Families of many forms provide a nurturing environment for children, and can include single parent families, same-sex parents, families headed by grandparents, kinship carers, adoptive parents and foster parents/carers.”
Importantly it reverts to accurate legal terms:
“Pupils should also be taught the facts and the law about sex, sexual orientation and sexual health.”
This replaces the wording of the previous guidance which replaced sexual orientation with the undefined concept of ‘sexuality’ and erroneously suggested that ‘gender identity’ is a factual concept embedded in English law:
“Pupils should be taught the facts and the law about sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity in an age-appropriate and inclusive way.”
It’s worth noting that a children’s picture book at the centre of concerns about ‘promoting homosexuality’ to children which led to Section 28 – Jenni Lives with Eric and Martin – is a story about a girl who lives with ‘two dads.’ It places homosexuality in the adult world. There is no comparison with the children’s picture books today – now numbering over 60 – that tell suggestible children themselves that they may be ‘transgender.’
For those who say ‘but I knew I was gay in primary school’, this is interpreting childhood feelings through an adult lens. Intense feelings of attraction towards a person in childhood is not understood by the child at the time as an adult understands it in terms of sexual attraction (just the same as for heterosexuality). It may or may not be indicative of sexual orientation in adulthood.
2. If we don’t teach children about sex they’ll learn it from online sources.
This has been the justification for teaching children about extreme sexual practices: to ‘protect’ them from what they will inevitably see online. There are many ways of protecting children from online porn; introducing it in the classroom is not one of them. The new RSHE draft guidance does not change the science curriculum; this is where children will learn the basics of human reproduction in an age-appropriate way.
The new curriculum protects children through teaching them at a level they can understand:
“In primary schools, this can be delivered by focusing on boundaries, privacy, and children’s rights over their own bodies. Pupils should be able to recognise emotional, physical and sexual abuse, though without getting into the detail of sexual acts.”
Teachers talking to children about masturbation and sexual pleasure is not only age-inappropriate, it normalises the act of adults talking to children about sex. It tells a child that this is a normal subject of conversation between adult and child. If a child experiences an adult talking to them about adult sexual practices, it should feel weird; it should make the child feel uncomfortable enough to report it to a trusted adult.
The RSHE draft guidance expressly allows teachers to respond to individual children who have questions. A child asking questions about sexual practices beyond their years should be a red flag warning to teachers that there is a potential safeguarding issue to address: where has the child learned this information; has an adult been talking to the child; has the child experienced abuse? Ensuring material is age-appropriate is a critical safeguard.
3. It isn’t happening.
Over the years we have documented the main trans and LGBT organisations and what they are teaching in both primary and secondary schools. All the following organisations teach gender identity as fact and that there are many ‘gender identities.’ Some of them helpfully state on their websites how many schools, teachers or children they have taught.
Stonewall. Stonewall schools guidance: a critical review
Is your school a Stonewall School Champion?
Stonewall turns its attention to children with SEND and autism
Do children need Stonewall’s LGBT inclusive teaching in primary schools?
No Outsiders. No Outsiders: Queering the primary classroom
No Outsiders scheme: still teaching children to be ‘trans’
According to the website, 77 schools have been visited for a No Outsiders teaching day, 18,700 children have been taught a No Outsiders lesson by Andrew Moffat and 4,200 staff trained.
The Proud Trust. The Proud Trust: nothing to be proud of
Based in Manchester, they claim to be actively working with over 500 schools.
Diversity Mel. Diversity Mel, Pop’n’Olly and the targeting of primary school children
Mel Lane, a one-woman outfit, says she has been into 80 schools, trained over 2,000 staff and 8,000 children across Dorset.
Pop’n’Olly. Olly Pike: the Pop’n’Olly brand of queer theory for children
According to the Pop’n’Olly website trainer Jack Lynch “presented to over 100,000 primary age children via school workshops.”
Just Like Us. Just Like Us factsheet
Just Like Us have signed up 6,000 schools for their own branded School Diversity Week.
Diversity Role Models. Diversity Role Models – or models of conformity to a new ideology?
Educate and Celebrate. Educate and Celebrate – smashing heteronormativity in the classroom
(Educate and Celebrate has gone out of business this year)
Gendered Intelligence. Gendered Intelligence training session for teachers at ‘Kiss my Genders’
Gendered Intelligence has been working in schools since 2008.
Mermaids. What questions should a school be asking about Mermaids training for teachers?
The Rainbow Flag Award is a kitemark award scheme similar to the Stonewall School Champions scheme. It was begun by the Proud Trust, the Kite Trust, Allsorts and humankind, and was subsequently joined by groups holding regional franchises, including Yorkshire MESMAC, the Intercom Trust and SupportU. The Kite Trust claims to work with 3500 pupils and 250 staff a year.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of regional trans and LGBT organisations going into schools to teach children that gender identity is real and sex is not. It is happening and, according to the boastful figures on some of the websites, it is happening in a lot of schools across the UK.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/rshe-draft-guidance-problem-schools/
Pronoun Badges
Will Hazell in The Telegraph( Four in 10 would be less likely to stay with a company if they were asked to wear pronoun badges 19 May) reports:
Kemi Badenoch, the Business and Trade Secretary - Peter Nicholls/PA© Provided by The Telegraph
Four in 10 people say they would be less likely to keep working for a company if they were asked to wear badges showing their pronouns, polling has found.
The finding comes in research backed by Kemi Badenoch on the “politicisation” of business, which shows that half of people think businesses have become too concerned with taking political positions on contested issues.
The Business and Trade Secretary said people wanted businesses to focus on serving customers, “not activism or political causes”.
Policy Exchange, the think tank, commissioned Deltapoll to interview 1,993 adults in Great Britain earlier this month on their attitudes towards companies taking stances on political issues.
It found that 43 per cent of people stated they would be less likely to continue working for a company which asked them to wear pronoun badges, with only 7 per cent answering that they would be more likely to want to work for the company.
The full article is here:
Jo Phoenix - the lessons to be learnt
Great analysis of the Jo Phoenix case by Sex Matters and proposals for the way forward for universities:
The Jo Phoenix case should be a wake-up call for universities (16 May)
In 2019 Professor Jo Phoenix became the target of a campaign of harassment from her colleagues at the Open University (OU) after she raised concerns about the silencing of gender-critical voices in academia. This ramped up in 2021 after she co-founded an academic research network for the rigorous exploration of issues of sex and gender. Hundreds of colleagues circulated an open letter calling for the OU to withdraw support from the network, with false allegations that she and her co-founders were hostile to trans people’s human rights.
The stress and the harm to her reputation of this academic mobbing left her in a state of trauma and unable to work.
In February 2024 an employment tribunal found the OU liable for more than 25 counts of belief discrimination and harassment, leading to unlawful constructive dismissal.
“We conclude that having 368 of your colleagues sign a public letter saying that you are part of a group that is fundamentally transphobic, is stigmatising and damaging and objectively was conduct that had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant.”
Employment Tribunal judgment
Today Sex Matters is publishing a report on learning from the Jo Phoenix case together with a paper by Professor Ian Pace on the phenomenon of workplace mobbing in universities. It was welcomed by Professor Robert Van de Noort CBE, vice-chancellor of Reading University, where Phoenix now works.
Professor Robert Van de Noort CBE, vice-chancellor of Reading University, welcoming our report with Professor Phoenix
Lessons to be learned
Jo Phoenix’s story exposes the prejudice towards gender-critical staff and students that is widespread in higher education. Her case should be a wake-up call for university senior management.
“The OU failed to protect me because of fear of being seen to support gender-critical beliefs. This is a message to all universities: you cannot stand back and allow gender-critical academics to be hounded out of their jobs.”
Professor Jo Phoenix
The legal lesson from the Phoenix case is simple: follow the Equality Act. Duty bearers under the act must recognise that people with gender-critical beliefs have equal rights and protections to those with other beliefs. Everyone is protected against discrimination and harassment related to all their protected characteristics.
The institutional lessons are harder. Many universities remain signed up to schemes such as Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index that have encouraged them to misunderstand the law and ignore and downplay the rights of gender-critical people, viewing prejudice against them as righteous allyship.
Staff at the OU failed to challenge the discrimination and harassment against Jo Phoenix because they misunderstood the law and were afraid of being accused of transphobia. They had been trained to think this way and were advised by organisations that led them to think they were doing nothing wrong. So the OU’s senior managers carried on failing to protect Jo Phoenix and then spent an estimated million pounds defending their unlawful behaviour over a month-long employment tribunal hearing.
Following the judgment, the vice-chancellor of the OU promised to learn from his mistakes. Then, shockingly, he appointed a solicitor to provide independent legal advice who publicly denigrated gender-critical views and equated them with refusing to accept that trans people have rights.
Who needs to act?
Universities should stop defending their bad behaviour and instead take charge to fix the institutionalised problem.
The final lesson that should be taken away from the Jo Phoenix case is that while Phoenix succeeded in getting justice, her tormentors were able to stymie the culture of research and debate. Universities are valuable not because they are nice places for academics to work but because they build knowledge.
We will be sending our report to all university vice-chancellors and calling on them to take the lead in addressing this hostile environment and reclaiming their purpose:
Make a strong commitment to intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality on controversial issues (the Kalven Principle).
Consult with gender-critical staff and students to understand their experiences.
Withdraw from benchmarking schemes promoted by lobby groups and review involvement in charter schemes such as Athena Swan.
Review policies and make sure they are in line with the law; revise EDI training and create a culture of evidence-based discussion.
Understand the phenomenon of mobbing and include it in training.
Be brave and stand up to bullying.
The Office for Students should review whether involvement with the Stonewall Diversity Champions or Workplace Equality Index, Athena Swan Charter or GLADD Charter is compatible with academic freedom.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has an important role to play. It should use its statutory powers to Invite universities to engage in a common “Section 23” agreement to address gender-critical discrimination and harassment, and to unwind discriminatory policies. It should also develop a set of model policies to help employers act in compliance with the Equality Act.
Research funding bodies should review whether incentives and policies linked to the Athena Swan and Stonewall conceps of gender identity undermine academic freedom and consider the quality of research they have funded that is informed by gender-identity ideology or about issues of sex and gender identity.
The Well of Wilful Ignorance
Excellent examination by Mr Menno of the treachery of Daniel Radcliffe:
Detransition Case
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic.
Judge grants detransitioner’s lawsuit against doctors to proceed in court: ‘Sufficient’ allegations (21 May)
Detransitioner Prisha Mosley and her lawyers won a significant legal victory earlier this month for her case against “gender-affirming” health providers.
The Independent Women’s Forum, where Mosley works as an ambassador, shared documents with Fox News Digital on Thursday that revealed Mosley’s lawsuit will move forward despite defendants’ motions to dismiss.
“[T]he Court has determined as a matter of law that the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert Ervin wrote.
Mosley’s case is the first detranistioner lawsuit that has been allowed to proceed in court, according to her attorney, Josh Payne.
EDI Jester emphasises the importance of the case here:
Barry has been completely demonetised by You Tube and is now posting videos on his susbstack. So please support his substack if you can.
International Academic Freedom Day
Thanks to the Academy of Ideas substack for letting us know about a day we probably can support for a change!
Happy International Academic Freedom Day!
Professor Dennis Hayes introduces a new opportunity to champion academic freedom and free speech on campus.
MAY 20, 2024
Today, Monday 20 May, is International Academic Freedom Day (IAFD). The idea for such a day was proposed at the Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF) National Conference in November last year. What was surprising was that there was no such day already listed in the calendar. It seems that academic freedom was not deemed worthy of celebrating, even for a day - even though every other day seems to be a celebration of something trivial.
Why 20 May?
On 20 May 1806, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill was born. Mill is the author of On Liberty (1859) which is still essential reading for all lovers of freedom today. The writers for the Days of Year calendar suggest celebrating International Academic Freedom Day by sitting down to read On Liberty. At least one AFAF branch is holding a discussion of Chapter 2, ‘Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion’, and we recommend reading it - even if you have read it before. Perhaps a copy of On Liberty should be given to all incoming students, academics and professional staff on campus?
Why do we need an International Academic Freedom Day?
Academic Freedom seems to be in a constant state of crisis. The two most important of these crises are the right of academics to hold ‘gender-critical’ views, and the need to uphold academic freedom and free speech as academics, students and universities respond to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Gender-critical academics who want to make the simple factual declaration that biological sex is real find themselves threatened and hounded out of their jobs. A few brave individuals, such as Jo Phoenix (pictured with me below), have shown that you can win in the courts - but it can come at great personal cost. Academics should not have to go to the courts to win the right not to be bullied and harassed for their views. We wait to see if universities will take note of the judgement in Jo’s case, and we have to thank gender-critical feminists like her for taking up the cause of academic freedom and creating a real debate about free speech across the UK and Ireland.
With campuses across the world witnessing protests about the Israel-Palestine conflict, defending academic freedom and free speech has become harder than ever. Some long-time supporters of free speech now take a more censorious stand for views they dislike.
Worse still, rather than uphold what is known as the Kalven Principle of institutional neutrality, universities have crumbled under pressure to take sides, make statements and consider academic and other boycotts of Israel. This is not their role. Their responsibility is to ensure the academic freedom and free speech of their staff and students on this and other issues.
These remain the major, contemporary battlefields for academic freedom and free speech in 2024. Today is a day to remember that these struggles are not over.
Just one day for academic freedom?
Cynics ask what is the point of having just one day a year to celebrate academic freedom when it should be celebrated every day of the year? That is true, but ‘academic freedom’ is a lost value in many universities. It might appear in policy statements and governing documents, but the term seems rare in daily vocabulary.
Universities celebrate many ‘days of the year’, but seem to forget about the over-riding importance of academic freedom. Getting campuses up and down the country to mark and celebrate IAFD will serve as a reminder that without academic freedom they are not worthy of being called a ‘university’.
We are not just one-day wonders. The main supporters of IAFD are organisations that defend academic freedom and free speech day after day. They include: Akademische Freiheit, Alumni For Free Speech, Free Speech Ireland, Free Speech Union, Free Speech Wales, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR), Liberté Académique, Movement For a Free Academia, Speak Easy and SAGES.
Endpiece
A double for you, dear readers.
Porcupine Day Of Visibility
Great work, the porcupine parents!!!!
Another update, jam packed with fantastic resources, thanks Dusty.
Whenever I hear about Labour plans for trans rights which somehow won’t affect women’s rights, I think of the Orwell quote….”Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them”.
I hope people aren’t put off by the word Christian .. that’s an excellent article.
Mr Menno has outdone himself. Brilliant.
Maggie Chapman is scarily insane looking. I love how Dennis Kavanagh always posts such macho pictures of himself.
Regarding gender ideology, we all need to be more porcupine. 😄
PS Who could forget Brandubh’s marvellous poem - a call to arms - to be more porcupine!