The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith

Update 196

In his excellent book The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World, Andrew Doyle not only discusses gender identity ideology but also its next door neighbour, critical race theory (CRT). In a recent video, EDI Jester told the moving story of a teacher who was driven to take his own life after being tormented and targeted and the torment all began when he made a perfectly valid point during an online training session which centred on CRT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mNG-pSnXE&t=1s

In a video today EDI reports on SNP MP Mhairi Black comparing gender critical campaigners to white supremacists!! Obviously this is the same ridiculous logic (or, rather, lack of logic) that led to Patrick Strudwick saying that Kellie-Jay Keen organised a Nazi salute at her Melbourne Let Women Speak rally. And look what happened to him ( as reported today by JL in her Good News Supplement):

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-69b

So I thought that Ms Black and Mr Strudwick could learn a bit from the depiction of some real racism in the 1978 Australian film, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. It is a harrowing film and very much a film of two halves. In the first half Jimmie ( played by Tommy Lewis) and his family endure discrimination and racism. In the second half Jimmie and his half-brother Mort ( played by Freddy Reynolds) seek revenge.

On the subject of JL’s GNS as linked to above, the Women’s Rights Bill that has been passed in Oklahoma provides a wonderful template for what can be done.

The Puberty Blockers Consultation

I reported on this NHS England consultation here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-rose-of-tralee

…and reported on the views of Dennis Kavanagh, Clive Simpson and Isla Mac in a later update and also note the interview in this update with Dr Miriam Grossman. Dr Grossman says that ‘gender dysphoria’ is a symptom like, for example, a fever. You can’t treat a fever without knowing precisely what is causing the fever. The same applies to gender dysphoria:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-lavender-hill-mob

Graham Linehan has now provided an excellent and very useful piece on this and he is clearly with Isla Mac in his thinking on the subject:

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/all-eyes-on-the-nhs

It appears that you can only respond online. There are just three questions and you will have to work out how to fit your response into those three questions. Those questions are:

Has all the relevant evidence been taken into account?

Does the equality and health inequalities impact assessment reflect the potential impact that might arise as a result of the proposed changes?

Are there any changes or additions you think need to be made to this policy?

I also feel it is unsatisfactory to have a purely online response mechanism. Obviously all of you reading this can cope with that method but there are a significant number of people who are not 'digitally literate' and they ought to be given the option of an alternative 'paper response'.

I intend to wait for 2 or 3 of the responses from some of the main organisations and then use all this useful information to formulate my own response ( which I will circulate). As it stands at present I am with Isla and Graham, with all due respect to wonderful Clive.

Thanks to Elizabeth Robertson in the comments to Graham’s piece bringing our attention to an excellent article by Brendan O’Neill in The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-gender-affirming-care/

Brendan concludes:

Thomas Szasz, the great anti-psychiatry agitator, once said that ‘even if a patient requests a lobotomy’ – which, believe it or not, they sometimes did – ‘his consent to the procedure is not the sole ethical consideration’. After all, said Szasz, unstable patients sometimes seek the ‘amputating (of) healthy body parts’, such as the removal of ‘healthy eyes’ or ‘healthy hands’. The fact that the patient ‘consents’ to such unconscionable interventions does not mean the doctor should consent to carry them out, he said. It is a relief he did not live to see what is unfolding in medicine today, where the ‘amputating of healthy body parts’ is frequently delivered upon patient request.

Szasz was surely right that patient consent is not ‘the sole ethical consideration’. There is also society’s responsibility not to inflict unnecessary harm on the bodies and lives of its citizens. An enlightened society should not greenlight brain destruction as a cure for mental ill-health, or bodily mutilation as a cure for identity crisis. Let girls be girls, and boys be boys; put away the drugs and scalpels.

Childline

In an excellent piece on his substack today, the wonderful James Esses looks at the role of Dame Esther Rantzen in Childline:

The Email That Dame Esther Rantzen Ignored

Rantzen was aware of the ideological capture of Childline and the NSPCC

As many of you are aware, I have written repeatedly about safeguarding failures taking place within Childline and the NSPCC in relation to gender ideology.

This has included:

·       Gender ideology being pushed on young children via their website.

·       Internal mandatory training courses forcing ideology on staff and counsellors and dismissing women’s concerns about safe spaces.

·       Childline message board and counselling threads which promote medical transition, breast binding and a narrative that there is a ‘genocide’ against trans children taking place.

·       NSPCC advice to staff regarding the ‘breastfeeding man’ -  that it is not a safeguarding concern and parents are free to breastfeed children as they wish. 

I have also previously written about the fact that, having been a volunteer counsellor for over 5 years, Childline kicked me out, once I started raising concerns around the prevalence of gender ideology within the charity and the associated risks for children.

Off the back of my reporting, the Charity Commission stated that they were looking in to the numerous complaints made against the NSPCC and Childline, in advance of deciding whether to conduct a formal investigation. However, there has been no word on this for a number of months now. When I reached out to the Charity Commission recently, I was told:

“We understand you are concerned about the charity and appreciate you sending us information. You have raised a concern about the safeguarding of young people using the charity’s Childline message boards. We are aware of related media coverage and we are engaging with the charity on the matter. We will consider your arguments as we progress the case. It is not our practice to provide updates on our engagement with charities to those who have raised concerns, but we thank you for getting in touch with us.”

One question I frequently get asked on social media is: ‘Have you spoken to Dame Esther Rantzen?’. As many of you will know, Rantzen was the founder of Childline, back in 1986, and has played an active role in the charity ever since, including in the role of Trustee of the NSPCC.

My simple answer to that question is: ‘I did’.

Back in June 2021, after I had been kicked out of Childline, I dropped Rantzen an email, asking if I could discuss my concerns with her. To my surprise, she replied and offered a phone call. Over the course of the phone call, I listed out the various issues I had observed within the charity and implored her to use her influence to do something about it. She asked me to email the full list of safeguarding concerns to her afterwards, which I did.

I never received a response. To this day, even after much chasing, I have never received a response.

Some people have told me that I shouldn’t bring Rantzen into this because of her ongoing ill-health (I have great sympathy for what she has gone through) and the fact that she plays less of a central role within Childline and the NSPCC.

However, Rantzen very clearly continues to be wheeled out as a positive spokesperson on their behalf, including wading into the debate on gender ideology. For example, in an interview with the Telegraph on the 15th July 2023, she said : “At Childline, we take what children tell us seriously. This should also apply to children who tell us they cannot bear to live as the gender they have been assigned”. This is mere parroting of an ideological approach grounded in affirmation, rather than exploration, and flies in the face of Childline’s own ethical codes.

Given the serious implications for children, I have decided to make it public knowledge that Rantzen was aware of the ideological capture of Childline and the NSPCC.

I recommend James’ substack.

And finally…

Oink, oink 😎

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