The French Lieutenant's Woman Part 1
Update 374.
I am splitting this update into two parts to make it more digestible, dear readers. Please spread these around if you can.
No 36 in the Leading Female Season is Meryl Streep in The French Lieutenant’s Woman.
The film intercuts the stories of two romantic affairs. One is within a Victorian period drama involving a gentleman palaeontologist, Charles Smithson, and the complex and troubled Sarah Woodruff, known as "the French lieutenant's woman". The other affair is between the actors Mike and Anna, playing the lead roles in a modern filming of the story. In both segments, Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep play the lead roles.
Lynsey Baxter plays Emestina.
Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Cross Sex Hormones Case
I reported on this case here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/good-morning-missouri-part-2?utm_source=publication-search
The judgment is here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/O-v-P-Final-Approved-Judgment.pdf
I reported on the previous case here:
The judgment in this case ( which I have now read in full) was not in favour of the more cautious parent (the mother, O) but agreed with the father (P) that his now 16 year-old daughter (Child Q) can access testosterone if this is deemed the appropriate treatment and she is judged to have capacity after assessment at Gender Plus.
The mother originally made an application for a prohibited steps order (PSO) in 2022, asking the court to prevent the father from arranging for Child Q to access hormones. This was agreed up to the age of 16 and the mother was seeking to extend the PSO until age 18.
Sarah Phillimore acted for the mother and argued that the previous judgments of the Court of Appeal in the Keira Bell case and in a case called A v B had now been overtaken by the Cass Review. Mrs Justice Judd did not accept this submission and decided that Q was competent to continue with an assessment for testosterone.
The mother was unable to find an expert endocrinologist to support her case. On this point, Mrs Justice Judd said:
Whilst there is a paucity of experts in some disciplines…I have never encountered a case where there was simply no-one willing to provide such evidence for the court (my emphasis).
The judge said that the mother “has faced a lot of criticism for continuing these proceedings, criticism which I firmly reject.”
Well done to the mother and I am pleased to see from Sarah Phillimore’s report below on this case and the previous case, that the mother in this case will be seeking leave to appeal.
Consent to Medical Transition at 16 - where are we now?
Two cases have now been decided in the wake of the Cass Review concerning the decision of 16 year olds to take cross sex hormones. In both, the court declined to intervene.
MAY 08, 2024
As evidence of just how ubiquitous the issue of child medical transition has become, we had the benefit of two reported cases very shortly after the publication of the Cass Review final report in April 2024. These were Re J (Transgender: Puberty Blocker and Hormone Replacement Therapy) [2024] EWHC 922 (Fam) and O v P and Q [2024] EWHC 1077 (Fam) where I represented the applicant mother.
I will consider each case in turn and then offer some thoughts on how matters are likely to develop.
The Facts
The facts of each case were broadly similar – both involved a female child aged 16 at the time of the hearing, who wished to continue or begin taking testosterone as part of a ‘transition’ to being perceived as male. Both involved one parent who agreed with the treatment and one who resisted. Both cases were concerned with what should happen when a child over 16 wanted to get private treatment, recognising the impact of NHS waiting lists and serious concerns about private providers such as Gender GP.
The law applied to both cases was uncontroversial. Children who are under 16 can consent to medical treatment without their parents if they are assessed to be ‘Gillick competent’ and understand the nature of the treatment proposed and its risks and benefits – see Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112. If a child isn’t Gillick competent then the parent provides consent.
Children who are over 16 benefit from a statutory presumption of capacity to consent as if an adult, pursuant to section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969
‘The consent of a minor who has attained the age of sixteen years to any surgical, medical or dental treatment which, in the absence of consent, would constitute a trespass to his person, shall be as effective as it would be if he were of full age; and where a minor has by virtue of this section given an effective consent to any treatment it shall not be necessary to obtain any consent for it from his parent or guardian.’
Two factors can operate to override that capacity. First, if s 2(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies and the child is found to lack capacity to make a decision because of an impairment of or disturbance in functioning of the mind or brain.
Second, the court retains an ‘inherent jurisdiction’ to override the wishes of any child up until the age of 18, if to do so is in the child’s best interests and will prevent significant harm. As was noted by Judd J in O v P the cases where the courts have acted to override a child’s consent have involved a child refusing treatment which was considered life saving, such as blood transfusions. There is no reported case of a court intervening to stop a child having treatment that was offered by a doctor and wanted by the child.
It is a matter of significance to ask the court to put medical transition into a ‘special category’ of treatment which required continued court oversight. The courts have, rightly, to be very wary of ‘treading on the toes’ of either clinicians or Parliament and many previous authorities have given stern warnings about the court dealing only with decisions that were necessary, and not straying into broader ethical dilemmas or medical issues which were better left to MPs or clinicians. Neither court was willing to make decisions confirming that medical transition should be a ‘special category’ of treatment that required continued court oversight. But both contain some helpful – and alarming – commentary on the state of childhood medical transition.
The decision in re J
In January 2023 when only 15, J started taking testosterone to ‘transition’ from female to male. This stopped in August 2023 when the matter came to court, J’s father being very concerned at the implications of this treatment, which was provided by ‘Gender GP’. This outfit was, until the registration of Gender Plus in January 2024, the only private provider of hormones in the UK.
All parties then agreed that she could undergo a six month assessment with Gender Plus and the court therefore did not need to make any decisions on the substantive issues around capacity and consent, but would rather ‘take stock of the issues and evidence to date (para 4) and provide some guidance arising out of what had been learned during these proceedings. The court explicitly did NOT consider the Cass Review as it had not been available at the time of the court hearing in February 2024.
The position regarding J was complicated by her diagnoses of autism and anorexia, and detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 for 9 months in 2021. J was then ‘appraised’ by Gender GP over 2 months in October 2022 but this involved direct communication with only an unregistered counsellor (para 12). J’s father was so concerned he made application to the court in April 2023 to ask the court to examine the propriety of treatment that was being given to J by an unregulated internet provider, which thus operates without the protections of care offered through specially commissioned NHS services.
The father did not believe J was able to consent to this and it could not be in her best interests, having regard to the serious, lifelong and irreversible nature of the treatment and J’s underlying mental health difficulties.
The father also wanted general declarations that if any one disputed the child’s capacity, diagnosis of gender dysphoria or the proposed treatment, the matter had to come back to court, even if the child was over 16. Further that no medical treatment for transition should be permitted outside the NHS unless approved by the court.
The court did not however need to determine this, as the parties had all agreed that J would no longer be seen by Gender GP.
What the court noted about Gender GP is horrifying. The court notes at para 33 that J’s only interaction with a ‘professional’ before being prescribed testosterone at 15 was with a person who has a diploma in counselling. There was no medical examination or blood testing. The court was unable to find a endocrinologist in the UK willing to assist the court as an expert witness but Dr Hewitt from Melbourne was eventually instructed. She was extremely critical of Gender GP (para 37) noting there was no skeletal bone age X ray and bone densitometry investigation, the psychological assessment was of ‘extremely poor quality’ and there is no record of counselling regarding the known risks of hormone treatment. But the most serious criticism related to the dose of testosterone provided = 100mg/4ml every 6 weeks (para 38). This was the level that would be administered to an adult only after a course of treatment starting at a much lower level.
‘Dr Hewitt advised ‘with confidence’ that ‘there is no professional society of paediatric endocrinologists internationally who would consider this anything other than a highly abnormal and frankly negligent approach’. She stated that ‘in Australia, the treatment provided by Gender GP would be unlawful’.’
Dr Hewitt was concerned that J was at risk of ‘sudden death’ due to thromboembolic disease, a thickening of the blood. A haematologist Dr Keenan advised that J’s blood test results were ‘effectively normal’ – but he compared her to an adult male, rather than considering her as a teenage girl. Dr Hewitt considered the dose of testosterone given to J as ‘massive’ and it could impact on the development of J’s bones and cause her to stop growing.
Dr Eyre a child and adolescent psychiatrist, diagnosed J with gender dysphoria and did not find that J lacked the ability to consent to the treatment and the testosterone treatment had had a positive impact in building J’s confidence and reducing anxiety.
The reality, as accepted by the court is that there is no realistic prospect of treatment on the NHS for J, given the long waiting lists. The parties therefore agreed that J should begin a six month assessment with Gender Plus.
At para 53 the court set out its approach
‘The approach that I propose to take, which is in line with that taken at all earlier stages in these proceedings, is to limit the court’s involvement in terms of decision making to that which is currently necessary. The law, and the approach of the courts, with respect to issues arising in cases of gender dysphoria is still very much in the process of development. In the absence of intervention by Parliament, the court should be careful to move forward on a case by case, decision by decision, basis so that the approach under the common law is developed incrementally as may be required, rather than by judicial diktat.’
The court wished to go no further, particularly given the need to consider the Cass Review but was careful to note that if any approach was made to Gender GP this would raise ‘significant concern’ and the court would expect a detailed account of its proposed course of assessment and treatment. The court concluded at para 58 by saying ‘Whilst further evidence may, of course, alleviate the concerns that I have described, on the experience in these proceedings thus far, I would urge any other court faced with a case involving Gender GP to proceed with extreme caution before exercising any power to approve or endorse treatment that that clinic may prescribe’
The Case of Q
This involved a female child, ‘Q’ who had socially transitioned to be perceived as male. Her father supported medical transition, the mother objected and applied to court. Only a few days before the hearing started, the final report of the Cass Review was published. This set out the need for ‘extreme caution’ before prescribing hormones to any child and recommended that a separate multi disciplinary team review any decision made to prescribe. The NHS immediately adopted this recommendation. It was clear that no private provider would be able to meet this requirement.
Gender Plus was registered by the CQC to provide hormones in January 2024, prior to the Cass Review. The mother’s case therefore shifted to asking the court to look carefully at the protection offered to children in general seeking private provision of hormones and to consider making a general declaration that any hormone treatment outside the NHS should be subject to court oversight as a ‘special category’ of treatment. The mother asserted that it was simply not possible for Q to give informed consent to a treatment which was confirmed by the Cass Review to have no compelling evidence base for either its safety or efficacy, but offered potential long term serious and irreversible consequences.
The court declined the mother’s request, echoing the concerns set out by the President in re J that the court must be particularly cautious in such a novel and sensitive area such as this not to lay down the law beyond which is necessary to determine any current dispute. To do so would to risk impermissible trespassing on the role of Parliament. As the mother did not object to a six month assessment by Gender Plus, the court decided that the proceedings must come to an end and declined to offer any further oversight, in the event that Q was prescribed hormones by Gender Plus. Q was noted to be ‘well informed’ and willing to undergo the Gender Plus assessment process.
However, it is notable that the court found the mother’s concerns about medical transition ‘well founded’ and she was not to be criticised for objecting and bringing the matter to court – indeed that her efforts had ensured that her daughter had not been prescribed puberty blockers, which might well be something Q was grateful for in the future.
The mother asked permission to appeal and this was refused. The mother will seek permission from the Court of Appeal, to raise concerns that the court did not properly consider how section 8 of the FLRA 1969 should be interpreted given what we now know about the maturation of the adolescent brain.
Commentary
It is disappointing to note that ‘assigned at birth’ now seems firmly embedded in the vocabulary of the courts as we can see in the ‘definitions’ offered in re J at para 14. Those with more sex realist views will note that sex is observed and recorded and nobody is assigning any ‘gender’ to a new born baby. Re J does at least refer to ‘cross sex hormones’ which it appears is not the approved nomenclature, being ‘gender affirming hormones’ – a bit like ‘top surgery’, an affirming and hence obfuscatory term.
It is very alarming that in both cases not a single UK expert endocrinologist could be found to assist the court; underscoring the extreme toxicity and polarity of the ‘debate’ around childhood medical transition which found Dr Cass advised not to travel on public transport after the final review came out.
In both cases, both judges firmly rejected any suggestion that the court should treat medical transition as a ‘special category ‘ of treatment which would require continued court oversight if treatment was sought outside NHS protocols. It is right that courts must tread carefully if entering an arena more suited to Parliamentary or regulatory control – but the court retains an ancient jurisdiction to protect children and at the moment it appears to me there is a risk that in the current situation, children are left without sufficient protection. But the sad reality is that NHS treatment with its more secure safeguards as recommended by Cass, is unlikely to be a viable option for those children who are likely to spend many years on a waiting list.
But how confident can we be that a child going to Gender Plus will receive an effective assessment, knowing as we do that Gender Plus is staffed entirely by those previously employed by the Tavistock whose commitment to ‘affirmation’ is not in doubt? Regardless of the robustness of its assessments, Gender Plus cannot (as was recognised by the court in O v P) offer the additional layer of protection required by Cass through a separate multi disciplinary review of any decision to prescribe.
However, both cases made it very clear that Gender GP are not safe, and it seems to be very likely that a court would be willing to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to protect a child from their interventions.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the mother’s attempt to appeal in O v P, along with the proposed judicial review of the decision to register Gender Plus by the CQC – if that succeeds there will be no private provider available for children in the UK. This may well lead to children being driven to even more dangerous black market providers and undergoing ‘DIY’ transition.
We do urgently need the Government to make good, as soon as possible on its proposals to deal firmly with those who profit at the expense of childhood distress and to ensure that resources are directed to enable the NHS to help those children who need it. The tension between paternalism and autonomy which exists in almost all cases about children, has potentially very significant consequences in this area.
Gender GP
Malcolm Clark on his excellent substack The Secret Gender Files turns his attention to Gender GP.
Gender GP: Malpractice in Plain Sight
For years it was clear the Webberleys' Gender GP clinic was endangering children's health. A new judgment confirms this and calls into question the entire gender affirming healthcare model.
MAY 17, 2024
Two weeks ago a judgment by the Family Division of the High Court exposed jaw-droppingly shoddy care at a private clinic. At any normal time this would be merely a side-bar, a story that came and went. Incompetent doctors harming patients is, after all, a tale as old as medicine itself. But these are not normal times.
The signs that trans ideology is collapsing around us have become loud and unmistakeable, from the discrediting of Gender Self-ID and the Cass Review to a string of employment tribunals that have upheld the right of employees to believe that biological sex is a factual reality. Who knew? This latest medical scandal though may be the most important sign of all and deserves to have lasting consequences.
The reason is that it involves one of the luminaries of so-called gender affirming healthcare, the medical pathway championed by the LGBTQ+ lobby. A pathway that has become the centre of fierce debate across the Western world, and a touchstone for both Left and Right.
The case involved Gender GP an online hormone clinic that has long been held up by the trans movement as a model of its ideal clinical future. Its founders ex-GP Helen Webberley and her husband Michael, a retired gastroenterologist, embraced the core claims of trans ideology, that children know they are trans from a very early age and the job of doctors is not to question the child’s claim -or that of a dodgy parent for that matter- but to provide the powerful hormones they demand with as little medical gatekeeping as possible.
The full piece is here and I recommend it:
https://malcolmrichardclark.substack.com/p/gender-gp-malpractice-in-plain-sight
Terf Month
I am afraid that we are approaching Pride Month (otherwise known as June). As regular readers may recall I turned last June on this substack into Gender Critical Month. However I am renaming it this year Terf Month. In normal circumstances we would not want to have a month but something has to be done to counteract the rainbow madness. As we did last year, I am looking for great GC speeches to feature on each update and pausing Leading Female Season in the interim. You might like to scroll back to last June to see some that were chosen then. Please make your nominations and happy to also have repeats from last June - some brilliant speeches were chosen then. To whet your appetites, here is possibly one of the best GC speeches ever!
To help us understand Pride Month in a very entertaining fashion, here is Gary Lucia:
https://flashinggreen.substack.com/p/make-room-more-genders-have-arrived?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
The Welsh Government
The Welsh Government may be collapsing. What a shame, eh?
David Wilcock in The Daily Mail ( Chaos in Wales as Plaid Cymru collapses power-sharing deal with Labour 17 May) reports:
Welsh Labour leader Vaughan Gething could become the second UK First Minister to be forced from power in a matter of weeks as he faces major challenges to his power.
Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru today pulled out of their co-operation agreement in the Senedd that gives Mr Gething's administration a majority.
Plaid leader Rhun ap Iorwerth blamed a failure to implement parts of the deal and concerns over donations worth £200,000 received by Mr Gething for his leadership campaign from businessman David Neal, a convicted polluter who dumped waste on a conservation site.
With the Welsh labour majority wiped out the Welsh Tories announced they are likely to seek to seek a confidence vote in Mr Gething.
The situation has strong echoes of that surrounding former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf, who resigned earlier this month after losing the support of the Scottish Greens.
The full article is here:
He’s A Man
This debate began with JK Rowling pointing out that a larping man appointed as a manager of a senior women’s football team was a ….larping man! I have reported on this here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/cold-mountain-part-1
And here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/good-morning-missouri-part-2
The second piece above centred on the disparity between a statement of Helen Joyce and what she said in an excellent TV interview.
Effectively EDI Jester returns to the subject here:
I am grateful to a reader who writes:
I also, really admire Helen Joyce, she’s wonderful, and I can understand the point she is making …..that if we treat gender ideology as if it’s a religion, we don’t then all have to believe in it. But I just don’t see how that could work. Ideologues believe that they actually become the opposite sex or another gender identity and so they expect validation from the rest of us, with language and accommodations in single sex spaces and sports. The whole point is that we all accept ‘who they are’. It’s the core of their belief system. Joyce herself has said that “it’s a totalising belief system”. And to expect some of the most aggressive, demanding and narcissistic people to just accept living alongside us without their demands being met, is naive in the extreme. We’ve seen how they behave over the past few years.
It worked when we only had a tiny number of transsexuals but we’ve gone far beyond that now. If we accept that GI is a valid belief system, then we are leaving the door open for male sexual fetishists to reconfigure society around themselves and their demands. They won’t be happy with just wearing a dress in public and they will certainly continue to try and indoctrinate children in order to validate their fantasy lives.
Most other belief systems do not attempt to reconfigure reality. They are based on ideas regarding an afterlife and a way of working towards that afterlife. GI does the opposite. It wants to destroy and reconfigure the sex based reality of everyone on the planet. Ideologues are not working towards an afterlife, they are trying to create their fantasy life in the here and now and have us all accept it as reality. And that affects all of us. So no Helen, acceptance or accommodation is not the answer. GI must be destroyed. Ideologues can believe what they like in their heads but the rest of us should be refusing to engage with any of the insanity.
This links in to a piece from a short while ago on her substack by Kat Highsmith
“Trans” Is A Fraud—And It Always Has Been
Doctors Have Known For Years And They Pushed It Anyway
JAN 22, 2024
That is right, dear readers. You read the title correctly. “Trans” is a fraud, and it always has been. All of it.
There is no number of real trannies who are truly delusional and therefore should get surgery and hormones to be happy. There is no number of reasonable trannies who know they are actually men (how can they feel like women then?) and therefore are the good ones. There is simply no such thing.
Doctors have known this for years as well, but it did not stop them from pushing this agenda upon their industry and society in general.
An excellent place to begin is the extremely informative “Report of the APA Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance” published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2008. The goals of this project were to review treatment policies, make suggestions for education and training, and recommend collaboration with organizations.
Founded in 1892, the APA is a powerful professional organization with over 146,000 members and a budget of about $125 million. It frequently conducts research and publishes recommendations which are used by other professional bodies, including another APA—the American Psychiatric Association (APA II).
APA II, founded in 1844, has a membership of nearly 38,000 and a budget of about $50 million. It also has an illustrious list of corporate sponsors, including Pfizer, Allergan, AbbVie, and Acadia, as discussed by CEO Saul Levin in its 2019 Impact Report.
The most influential function of the APA II is the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which serves as the principal psychiatric authority and diagnostic manual for the medical industry in the United States. Trends in the United States have a global impact due to cultural and financial influence, even if foreign countries do not use the manual.
The APA II published the DSM-5 in 2013 and a revised version in 2022. The 2008 “Report of the APA Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance” was therefore used by the APA II for the DSM-5.
As such, the DSM-5 reconfigured “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria,” a cunning twist of language that seeks to reframe a “disorder” (disease) to “dysphoria” (state of unease). Everyone reading this should already know the “trans” agenda is a language-based assault on reality and logic, and this change was a significant one.
The APA task force and staff for the 2008 publication included the following members: Dr. Margaret S. Schneider, Dr. Walter O. Bockting, Dr. Randall D. Ehrbar, Dr. Anne A. Lawrence, Dr. Katherine Rachlin, Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, and Dr. Clinton W. Anderson.
These doctors (PhDs and MDs) have over a century of collective experience in research, experience, and clinical treatment.
The first thing that stands out in this report is the first footnote on page one: “The task force was originally called the Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions and changed its name to the Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance to remove ‘Intersex Conditions,’ consistent with the actual content of the report. The task force found the two populations to be too distinct from one another to address their unique issues and needs in a single report, and the task force members considered their expertise on intersex conditions to be too limited for them to handle the topic well.” (Bold emphasis mine.)
Does this footnote not put to rest the idiotic comparisons of objectively identifiable development sexual disorders (“intersex conditions”) to delusional men who think they are women? These two things cannot be compared because they are not alike, and doctors admitted it in 2008. Yet and still, even today, “trans” defenders try this tactic because it changes the subject since “trans” is indefensible.
Within the 106-page document, there is a great deal of information which reveals the political goals of the APA, which in turn affect the APA II and the DSM-5, since the “trans” agenda is a nefarious project with destructive political and financial aims. Anyone interested can read it in its entirety.
The most striking example of the total intellectual bankruptcy of this movement is revealed when the report discusses on page 12 the language to be used: “Often we found it especially problematic to decide whether to use the term sex or gender. For example, is it more accurate to say that transsexuals receive cross-sex hormone therapy or cross-gender hormone therapy?”
Problematic? We have been told that sex and gender are totally different, and everyone supposedly knows this. Were these doctors not aware of this? Are they not experts on this?
And what is the purpose of the term “transsexual” here? How is it different from “transgender”? Why do these terms even exist if no one, not even a task force of doctors, can explain them?
The report goes on to ask more questions: “Is it preferable to call dissatisfaction with one’s primary and secondary sex characteristics sex dysphoria (arguably more accurate) or gender dysphoria (the established term of art in the field)? Are pretransition adult female-to-male transsexuals more appropriately called biologic females (arguably more consistent with their identities) or women (arguably more consistent with usual APA style, and not redundant)?”
These people are doctors, and this topic is what they do for a living. Why is a term of art in the field inaccurate then? Why are they unable to answer these questions? Oh, and what are women? Provide a definition.
This line from the report, however, puts the nail in the “trans” coffin when one considers exactly what is going on here: “It seems prudent to note at the outset, however, that we found it challenging, if not impossible, to write about the issues relevant to our charge using terminology that was simultaneously (a) internally consistent, (b) consistent with established ‘terms of art’ in the field of transgender care, (c) consistent with the typical usage of scholars in related fields, and (d) respectful of the diverse identities of transgender and gender-variant persons.” (Bold emphasis mine again.)
Please read the previous paragraph once more, slowly, and pay attention to what a literal task force of doctors says here.
Challenging if not impossible?
Why is it impossible to be consistent here? If seven doctors whose life’s work focuses on being “respectful” towards a group they cannot apparently even define fail to use simple words consistently, what does this say about their field?
Did any of these doctors stop, think, and ask themselves tough questions once they realized that they could not even explain the difference between sex and gender?
How could a group of highly educated, intelligent people not even slightly doubt any of this? What if they knew it was a fraud since they could not even figure out how to use simple words?
What if one of the doctors just raised her hand and asked, “what if this whole thing is a fraud and that is why we cannot be consistent?”
The reason a task force of doctors could not use the words “sex” and “gender” properly is because the word “gender” has no application to humans. It is a linguistics term that applies to words only.
Consequently, there is no such thing as “gender identity,” “transgender,” “cisgender,” or “gender dysphoria.” None of it is real.
Humans, as a mammalian species, have two sexes—female and male. A male who “feels like” he is a female is suffering from a delusion due to a deeper mental problem, which is the actual issue to address. This is not “dysphoria” because delusion is not unease.
A 70-pound anorexic who “feels like” she is obese does not have “weight dysphoria.” She is suffering from mental illness, and nobody would give her liposuction to affirm her delusions. Likewise, males do not need hormones, surgery, or birth certificate changes to affirm their delusions, whatever fuels them.
So, even though the APA task force found it impossible to be consistent, they made their recommendations anyway. “Gender identity disorder” was changed to “gender dysphoria” in 2013, and we see the disastrous effects today, from male rapists with taxpayer-funded breast implants in women’s prisons to males decimating women’s sports.
Any other course of action, of course, would have cut into the APA, APA II’s, and general medical industry’s huge revenue possibilities in relation to the “trans” agenda. Jennifer Bilek’s invaluable work investigates the colossal profits to be made here, much of which go to the APA II’s corporate sponsor list from the 2019 Impact Report.
Maybe that is why none of the doctors wanted to point out the obvious. Careers can end over this.
As a result, simply put, “trans” is a fraud. No other conclusion can be reached once we understand the lies upon which this agenda is based. Frauds cannot exist forever. “Trans” will end, and the time for that is now.
Which leads us, logically, to Jennifer Bilek who made an online speech at the conference organised on 18 May by Inflection Point New Zealand ( I understand that this conference was attacked by anti-women activists though I do not have the full details yet).
You will find Jennifer’s speech on her substack:
All thoughts gratefully received, of course. Happy to print a piece if anyone wants to write one.
Stop Press
Katrina Biggs on her substack A B’Old Woman has posted a great report about the conference. Well done, Katrina. She mentions the Te Papa museum which my wife and I visited when we were in New Zealand.
Endpiece
This is not actually a parody! It is meant to be serious!!! No, really!!!
https://x.com/godblesstoto/status/1792194762134667590
You can’t really beat that LWS speech apart from possibly Brandubh.
What is there to say about Gender GP!
Of course it’s all a fraud. As Bilek would say…it’s one that’s created and perpetuated by an unholy alliance of transhumanists, fetishists and profiteers, in order to groom us into compliance with their agenda. We could call ourselves the Fraud Squad or Fraud Busters. Who’ya gonna call?
The Greens really are insane. 🤪 Thanks Dusty.