Water from the Well Part 2

Update 318 For Women Scotland Special

Welcome to Part 2, dear readers ( another long one!!) and back to Erin Brockovich.

For Women Scotland

I reported on the Lady Haldane judgment against For Women Scotland (FWS) here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-french-connection

Basically this judgment concluded, to rather oversimplify it, that the Gender Recognition Act trumped the Equality Act. The previous judgment concluded that: “A person with a GRC in the female gender comes within the definition of ‘woman’ for the purposes of section 11 of the Equality Act, and the guidance issued [by the Scottish Government] in respect of the 2018 Act [Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland)] is lawful.”

So great news, as discussed by Clive Simpson and Dennis Kavanagh on Queens’ Speech today, that FWS have obtained permission from the Scottish Inner Court of Session ( their Court of Appeal) to proceed with their appeal to the Supreme Court:

https://clivesimpson.substack.com/p/queens-speech-episode-78-beware-the

You will find the FWS crowd funder here - there appear to have been some interesting donations already 🤣

https://twitter.com/Sorelle_Arduino/status/1758904135552794906

Woo Woo Doctors!

Thanks to a wonderful reader for this piece. It appears that some doctors are not happy about biology!

Stephen Matthews in The Mail Online ( Woke GPs push for Royal College to cancel 'gender critical' event held at its HQ because it has 'transphobic' speakers 16 February) reports:

Woke medics are calling on Britain's biggest GP body to cancel a 'gender critical' conference at its HQ because it is platforming 'transphobic' speakers. 

The Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG) will hold the event at the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP)'s conference centre in London next month. 

Speakers, including GPs, psychiatrists and sociology professors, are set to discuss 'controversies in the care of children', including sex-based language in healthcare and the 'impacts of gender medicine on same-sex attracted youth'. 

Among the event's speakers include education leads for NHS gender services for children and professors of obstetrics. Professor Susan Bewley (pictured) is  a professor emeritus of obstetrics and women’s health. Dr Az Hakeem (pictured ) has publicly opposed the upcoming ban on conversion practices. He was accused in 2022 of 'attempting to practice' transgender conversion therapy, although the GMC confirmed that no action would be taken against him in relation to the allegations, which he strongly denied.

The full article is here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13082477/Woke-GPs-push-Royal-College-cancel-gender-critical-event-held-HQ-transphobic-speakers.html

Drag Queen Story Hour

Thanks to wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic for this piece.

The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour (15 February)

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.

Start with queer theory, the academic discipline born in 1984 with the publication of Gayle S. Rubin’s essay “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.”

Once the ground is softened and the conventions are demystified, the sexual revolutionaries could do the work of rehabilitating the figures at the bottom of the hierarchy—“transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers.”

Where does this process end? At its logical conclusion: the abolition of restrictions on the behavior at the bottom end of the moral spectrum—pedophilia.

The father figure of the ideology, Foucault, whom Rubin relies upon for her philosophical grounding, was a notorious sadomasochist who once joined scores of other prominent intellectuals to sign a petition to legalize adult–child sexual relationships in France.

The next critical turn occurred in 1990, with the publication of Gender Trouble, by the queer theorist Judith Butler. Gender Trouble was a bombshell: it elevated the discourse around queer sexuality from the blunt rhetoric of Gayle Rubin to a realm of highly abstract, and sometimes impenetrable, intellectualism.

The goal of drag, following the themes of Butler and Rubin, is to obliterate stable conceptions of gender through performativity and to rehabilitate the bottom of the sexual hierarchy through the elevation of the marginal.

The final turn in the story of drag is, in some ways, the most surprising. As the dark side of drag pushed transgression to the limits, another faction began moving from the margins to the mainstream. Some drag queens—most notably, the drag performer RuPaul—toned down the routines, pushed the ideology deep into the background, and presented drag as good old-fashioned, glamorous American fun.

This provided an opportunity. As the queer theorists’ vanguard intellectual project was running aground on incest and bestiality fantasies, the most enterprising among them took a different tack: using the commercialization of drag and the goodwill associated with the gay and lesbian rights movement as a means of transforming drag performances into “family-friendly” events that could transmit a simplified version of queer theory to children.

The key figure in this transition was a “genderqueer” college professor and drag queen named Harris Kornstein—stage name Lil Miss Hot Mess—who hosted some of the original readings in public libraries and wrote the children’s book The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish. Kornstein sits on the board of Drag Queen Story Hour, the nonprofit organization that was founded by Michelle Tea in 2015 to promote “family-friendly” drag performances and has since expanded to 40 local chapters that have organized hundreds of performances across the United States.

The purpose, then, is to subvert the system of heteronormativity, which includes childhood innocence, and reengineer childhood sexuality from the ground up.

Of course, the organizers of Drag Queen Story Hour understand that they must manage their public image to continue enjoying access to public libraries and public schools. They have learned how to speak in code to NGOs and to appease the anxieties of parents, while subtly promoting the ideology of queer theory to children.

[T]he spirit of drag is predicated on the transgressive sexual element and the ideology of queer theory, which cannot be erased by switching the context and softening the language. The philosophical and political project of queer theory has always been to dethrone traditional heterosexual culture and elevate what Rubin called the “sexual caste” at the bottom of the hierarchy: the transsexual, the transvestite, the fetishist, the sadomasochist, the prostitute, the porn star, and the pedophile. Drag Queen Story Hour can attempt to sanitize the routines and run criminal background checks on its performers, but the subculture of queer theory will always attract men who want to follow the ideology to its conclusions.

Source: The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour | City Journal

A Reader Writes

Sex as a binary is a biological reality which has been in existence since before language. It doesn’t need language to create its existence, it just exists.

Gender ideology is the polar opposite. It’s a completely made up belief system. It cannot exist without words which create a faux reality for it. This is why the ideologues are so adamant that we must all use their words and their meanings for words. It’s why we must use preferred pronouns and chant the mantras, or risk vilification, cancellation or worse.

Preferred pronouns are far more than a ‘gateway’. They completely create that faux reality. Without the language of gender ideology, all we have are blokes in dresses.

Thanks to this reader. Wish I could have written that 😊 If you want to write a piece for this substack, please send it to me 😊

Irish Referendum - Vote No

John McGuirk in Gript News ( GOVERNMENT IS FORFEITING THE RIGHT TO EVER TALK ABOUT MISINFORMATION AGAIN 14 February) reports:

Earlier this week, the Taoiseach of Ireland said something that is plainly, undeniably, and absolutely false. Speaking at the launch of his party’s “Yes/Yes” campaign ahead of the two March 8^th referendums, Leo Varadkar said the following, as faithfully reported without comment by the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster:

“The Taoiseach has said the referendum on care, if passed, would place an additional and stronger obligation on future governments to support carers.”

To establish that this statement is untrue, the average voter need only look at the wording of the proposed constitutional change. Here it is, in full, with my emphasis on the relevant bit that proves the Taoiseach’s words to be the nonsense that they are:

“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”

The word “strive” is defined in the Cambridge English Dictionary as follows: ‘to try very hard to do something or to make something happen, especially for a long time or against difficulties.’ In other words, the Government is not obliged to do anything. It is simply obliged to try to do something, using a word that recognises that doing something might be very hard, if not impossible.

It might additionally be pointed out that there is nothing in the constitution’s present wording that prevents the Government from providing additional support to carers if it wishes, something Simon Harris admitted to Ben Scallan earlier this week.

But the Government was not done there. Green Minister Catherine Martin asserted, completely falsely, that the current wording of the constitution “says that a woman’s place is in the home”. This is untrue.

It is not only untrue, but it has been confirmed as being untrue by no less an authority than the Irish Supreme Court’s Judge Marie Baker, who is also Chairwoman of Catherine Martin’s own independent electoral commission, who says that “The case law of the Supreme Court is quite clear that (the present wording) doesn’t mean that a woman’s place is in the home”. If you don’t believe me, you can watch her saying it herself here.

But then we get back to the Taoiseach. Here he is this week saying that warnings that the referendum might lead to more immigration under so-called “family re-unification” are “red herrings”:

Yet here is a report from the Irish Independent, from last December, explicitly contradicting what he’s just said on camera:

“Cabinet ministers have been told constitutional changes to the definition of a family could result in an increase in people seeking reunification with relations who emigrated to Ireland.

Documents prepared by senior officials for a high-level meeting said: “In the specific area of immigration, it is likely that the amendment will give rise to an increase in the number of persons asserting family relationships.”

Now of course, the Government might dispute the contents of the Irish Independent’s reporting – but they have had two months to do so, and failed to raise any concerns about it. And in fairness to the Independent, their reporting of cabinet discussions is almost always accurate. There is zero reason to doubt its accuracy in this instance, especially since so much time has elapsed.

So that’s three instances of senior members of the Government making statements about the referendum, in one week, that are verifiably false. And that, in all honesty, they have to have known to be false at the time they made them. Leo Varadkar was at the cabinet meeting that discussed immigration. Catherine Martin set up the electoral commission and appointed Marie Baker to chair it. Even the average Irish politician can understand the meaning of the word “strive”. It defies credibility to suggest that these false statements are honest mistakes.

This is the same Government, one should remember, that endlessly warns us about the dangers of misinformation and disinformation, and in particular how misinformation might lead to the corruption of democratic outcomes. Their constant refrain is that online misinformation might lead to people voting based on bad information, damaging the interests and image of the country internationally.

Aside from anything else, the really annoying thing is that in principle, the Government is right to warn about the dangers of misinformation. Some of it comes from sources other than the Government, and of course even those with the best intentions can make an honest mistake. Yesterday I encountered somebody who believes, for example, that Indian nationals were paid €80,000 by the Irish taxpayer to come here – an example of genuine misinformation that did not come from the state.

But arguments about misinformation cannot be sustained when the Government itself is openly misinforming voters about the consequences of what they are asking the public to vote on. There are reasonable and fair arguments to be made for a Yes vote, and reasonable and fair arguments to be made for a No vote. The Government, by contrast, is simply fibbing to the public. They should never be taken seriously about misinformation again.

And nor should the pious media outlets that echo their every concern about misinformation, and stay quiet when misinformation comes from Government buildings. It’s revolting.

Tranada

Thanks to a wonderful reader for directing me to this piece and the next two pieces. A scary piece here from wonderful Meghan Murphy on her substack The Same Drugs about the situation in Canada:

Trudeau's government is setting the stage to criminalize gender identity dissidents in Canada

CSIS claims those challenging gender identity ideology are "violent extremists," but where is their concern for those engaging in overt violence and threats against women's rights activists? (17 February)

A target in a darts game played at CATA’s “Transmas” party in 2019

This week, the Canada’s state funded media reported that CSIS, Canada's intelligence agency had assessed that the “anti-gender movement,” determining it could "inspire and encourage serious violence against the 2SLGBTQI+ community.” Referring to those pushing back against misogynist, violent and predatory trans activism as “extremists,” CSIS appears to be responding to a growing pushback against gender identity ideology in Canada, including politicians like Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre who support policy limiting the transitioning of minors.

CSIS spokesperson Eric Balsam told CBC News that while violent rhetoric does not always lead to violence, "the ecosystem of violent rhetoric within the anti-gender movement, compounded with other extreme worldviews, can lead to serious violence."

These statements are shocking beyond belief, as someone who has been fighting gender identity ideology in an effort to protect women’s rights, children, free speech, and reality more broadly, for many years now. I and women all around the world have faced extreme threats of violence for at least a decade, in our attempts to gather, organize, write and speak about our concerns, and the impact of transgenderism on women and girls in particular.

I have required private bodyguards and a police presence at almost every event I have spoken at in Canada and the US. An event organized by WoLF [ Women’s Liberation Front] in Seattle in 2020 was subject to a bomb threat. When the panelists and I left the building, activists hurled themselves at us as we tried to get in our security team’s vehicles, to escape. An event planned at Simon Fraser University in 2019 was shut down just days before when the University’s security told us the threat of violence was too great, and that they wouldn’t be able to guarantee the safety of students, staff, and attendees. We held the event at the Pan Pacific instead, where activists parked themselves outside holding a makeshift guillotine reading “TERFs and SWERFs step right up.”

In response to my talk in Toronto in 2019, 700 protesters showed up outside the public library, including Antifa, a violent terrorist group, to hurl vitriol and threats at attendees. Thousands had attempted to force the Toronto Public Library (TPL) to cancel the event, but city librarian Vickery Bowles refused, citing the library’s mandate to support free expression. The police had to cordon off the entire block surrounding the TPL in order for me to enter and leave the building safely. It had been planned that I would do media interviews after the event, but things had gotten so out of hand outside, and trans activists had also barricaded themselves inside the library, that the police told me I had to leave immediately, offering me a jacket to cover my head (I refused it). The police were visibly scared.

The full piece is here:

https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/p/trudeaus-government-is-setting-the?publication_id=666229&r=1v403b

Conversion Therapy

Transgender Trend have written a letter to Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP about his Conversion Therapy Bill ( this is the second such private member’s bill - the other one is in the Lords - see my report on that here: https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/thelma-takes-charge-part-2 ). Though doubtless Mr Russell-Moyle will ignore this letter, it does act as a useful summation of the arguments.

Dear Lloyd – re your Conversion Therapy Bill (15 February)

A post went out today on X (formerly Twitter) from Ban Conversion Therapy, with a video of various politicians speaking in support of Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s Conversion Therapy Bill. It was the usual message – that conversion therapy is abuse – with the usual lack of any evidence that it is happening to transgender people. It urged people to write to their MPs to support the Bill’s second reading on March 1st.

The tone of this message is in complete contrast to the measured and properly informed debate on conversion therapy in the Lords last week. You can watch the whole debate here on the Parliament TV website.

We met Lloyd Russell-Moyle in January to discuss his Private Members Bill to ban conversion therapy, and were promised a further meeting. As this was not possible before March 1st we were invited to write with our wider concerns. We thought today would be a timely opportunity to share our letter to Lloyd Russell-Moyle which we sent on February 12th.

Dear Lloyd,

We met you on January 26th to discuss your Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill. The Bill faces its 2^nd reading in the Commons on March 1^st.

We wanted to speak to you about the inclusion of ‘transgender identity’ in the bill and make sure that you understood why it is a harmful and retrograde step to embed the concept in UK law.

However, at your request we agreed to discuss the Bill only, line by line, and to leave aside the wider issues of why there has been such an unprecedented rise in the number of children and young people identifying as transgender.

We felt that you engaged with our points and listened to our suggestions, and you agreed that it would be useful to have a further meeting to discuss the wider social and cultural background to the sudden belief in gender identity. A date was agreed which you then had to cancel for diary reasons and no further date was arranged.

We regret this and if we had been able to arrange a further face-to-face meeting this is what we would have said.

No legislation banning conversion practices will be safe for children and young people. In fact, a bill which includes transgender puts them at risk of homophobic conversion therapy. The overwhelming evidence for this was summarised brilliantly in Kemi Badenoch’s letter of February 7^th to the Women and Equalities Committee. Her letter references all the reputable and irrefutable research pointing to the fact that most children with a transsexual identity will grow up to be non-trans gay and lesbian adults. She shows how identity confusion, based on sex stereotypes can become embedded in a young child’s thinking before they experience sexual attraction.

You have said that you believe your Bill has safeguards for this cohort of same-sex attracted young people. We think this is naïve in the current social climate in which every organisation that purports to look after the interests of LGB people also have a foundational belief in the existence of ‘trans kids.’ Stonewall for instance says “Research suggests that children as young as 2 recognise their trans identity.” This flies in the face of all our knowledge of child development and their cognitive understanding. To put it bluntly it is an ignorant lie.

But this lie is repeated ad nauseam by all the major LGBT+ organisations, it is to be found in all the trans toolkits for schools, it is repeated by LGBT+ educational groups. The result is that a belief that has no basis in fact is now embedded in our schools and colleges. This is the idea that a child can have a gender or transgender identity in opposition to their actual biological sex. The major teaching unions also promote their support for this idea. All these groups and organisations advise that ‘trans kids’ must be supported in their belief that they are trans however young they are. This is the social context into which a ban on conversion therapy would land; one highly skewed towards an affirmative approach.

The Cass Review is clear that a narrow affirmative approach led to the problems of diagnostic overshadowing at GIDS [ The Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock Clinic], meaning that other co-morbidities were ignored in favour of a transgender explanation for a child’s distress. Not one of the organisations listed above has engaged in good faith with the Cass Review, nor used its finding to inform their thinking.  None of them have incorporated the shocking facts of what went on at the Tavistock’s GIDS into their training, statements, or curriculum ideas.  

Sending a message?

You said you considered that part of the purpose of your bill was to send a ‘message.’ We’d like you to think about what this message is, who will hear it and how will it be understood. If your Bill becomes law, let’s imagine how gender-distressed children and vulnerable young people might interpret this message. They’ve been told repeatedly by LGBT+ organisations that they are hated, and are in actual danger from transphobes, who are defined as anyone who doesn’t affirm their belief that they are the opposite sex. They’ve read online that as a group they are highly likely to commit suicide. They’ve been told that conversion therapy is an ever-present danger, everything they read will repeat these same messages, which will be confirmed by its criminalisation.

This is from the Ban Conversion Therapy website and is typical:

“Hearing about conversion therapy might be difficult for you. This is something that has sadly hurt thousands of LGBTQIA+ people, and something that continues to cause damage to people across the UK today.”

These children are not going to read the specifics of the law itself. The only message that will land is that conversion therapy is banned. Any discussion with parents or a neutral exploratory therapist will be seen through this lens, it will be experienced as conversion therapy. It will make these vulnerable young people fear such discussions. Simple questioning or non-affirmation by a parent will stoke fears that something dangerous is happening, caused by words alone. It’s not hard to imagine a child accusing a parent or therapist of conversion therapy.

The most pernicious part of the narrative that’s been created is that those practising ‘conversion therapy’ may appear to be compassionate and reasonable. This will stoke a child’s suspicion towards genuinely loving and caring parents, which is a frightening state of insecurity to create for a child. Trust is important in any relationship, but in the parent-child relationship at a time when a child is navigating the storms of adolescence, it is key.

Imagine the teenage boy who is fully supported and accepted by his parents as gay, but has been relentlessly bullied at school for his effeminacy. If he suddenly announces he identifies as a girl and is trans, his parents may justifiably be concerned. He has already been told that if his parents don’t immediately affirm him they are, at best, unsupportive, and at worst, transphobic bigots. A legislative ban on trans conversion therapy would teach him that they are also potentially criminals.

A recent New York Times article included an interview with a detransitioner who said this: “I transitioned because I didn’t want to be gay. I believed homosexuality was a sin.” How will your Bill protect young gay and lesbian people who are effectively practicing a form of self-conversion therapy?

If you were a gay teen now you would be experiencing a school and youth culture that was almost non-existent even five years ago. ‘Support’ for gay and lesbian teens all comes through the lens of ‘gender identity’ even to the extent that same-sex orientation has been rebranded as ‘same-gender’ orientation by Stonewall and ‘LGBT’ organisations. Unfortunately homophobia still exists in schools while ‘trans’ is promoted and celebrated. Is it any wonder that same-sex attracted adolescents are increasingly confused about their sexuality?  

A ban on conversion therapy will also send a chilling message to parents, social workers, therapists and teachers who want to follow a watchful waiting approach towards any child with gender distress. Watchful waiting is the gold standard method of treatment for these children, and involves holding a neutral space to explore their feelings without taking an affirmative approach. However we know from news reports and court cases that this is not what is happening and that those who don’t affirm have been investigated or lost their jobs.

Social work: CAFCASS is the largest employer of social workers in England. In guidance published in January 2023 they said:

“Direct or indirect conversion therapy is morally and ethically wrong and the child should be permitted to express their gender in accordance with their needs.”

“Any suggestion that some children state they are transgender for attention, because they have been influenced by social media or others such as parents is wrong.”

“Children are not immune to being exposed to high profile gender critical views and the fact they are children does not protect them from its everyday impact or inhibit those making such assertions.”

Social workers such as Rachel Meade have faced disciplinary proceedings for holding gender critical views, others have lost their jobs. Looked after children make up 0.58% of the general population but 4.9% of GIDS referrals. Hilary Cass was concerned by these numbers and wrote “In discussion with social workers, we heard concerns about how looked after children are supported in getting the help and support they need.”

A conversion therapy ban will confirm the professional practice bias towards affirmation, making it even harder for social workers to offer a neutral perspective to troubled young people.

Teachers: All the main teaching unions take an affirmative approach to pupils with gender related-distress. The NEU policy Supporting Trans and Gender Questioning Students tells teachers to assist a pupil in transitioning by using new pronouns, allowing them to use the facilities of their choice. The NAHT likewise proposes that schools teach gender identity as fact from early years and up. A conversion therapy ban in this environment would simply reinforce the affirmative beliefs that have already become embedded in unions and other educational bodies.

Therapy: Therapists have already experienced the chilling effect of a conversion therapy ban within their profession. With no mandate or democratic oversight The Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy 2 was passed in 2017. This professional practice guide prevents therapists from practising exploratory therapy with clients with gender related distress. You have heard from therapists who were able to explain why a legal ban would make it even harder to practice their profession. We know that gender identity services are finding it hard to recruit staff due to the pro-affirmation grip in the existing services. Those trying to reform services following the changes introduced by the Cass Review report constant pushback from activists in the NHS. Because this is a contested issue, a conversion therapy ban will be seen as an endorsement of pro-affirmation only.

Parents: There are many accounts of schools and youth groups keeping knowledge of a child’s trans identity from their parents. There is evidence of parents being threatened by social workers that their children will be taken into care if they don’t affirm their child. While education and social work’s governing bodies and unions remain committed to an affirmative approach, these parental fears are very real. For instance, we’ve been contacted by parents who, when seeking an autism assessment for their 14-yr-old daughter, found their daughter referred to as ‘he’ throughout the written report. When challenged, as the parents were opposed to socially transitioning their daughter, the private company carrying out the work referred to their trans inclusion policy and refused to change the wording.

The social and cultural landscape on transgender issues in the UK is not neutral. It is firmly weighted towards affirmation and special opprobrium is targeted at those who raise valid concerns about children and young people. We believe your Bill will simply reinforce these trends. You have been told that most of the GIDS patients were same-sex attracted, 35% are on the autism spectrum. They will be harmed by legislation, however well-intended, that reinforces the idea that conversion therapy is a threat. A Bill will prevent those offering neutral help from speaking out and will prevent those in need of help from listening.

We ask you to withdraw your Bill. There is no evidence that conversion therapy for being trans is happening. The real threat to gender questioning children and young people comes from homophobic conversion therapy in the form of gender affirmation. Please rethink. 

Best wishes

Stephanie and Shelley    

https://www.transgendertrend.com/conversion-therapy-bill-lloyd-russell-moyle/

Clive and Dennis also discuss this Bill in the Queens’ Speech - see link above.

John Lewis Goes Woo Woo

Alex Ward and Oliver Price in The Mail Online ( Fury as John Lewis trans-friendly staff magazine gives advice on breast binders for children - sparking boycott threats from customers 16 February) report:

John Lewis is facing calls for a boycott after it gave advice in a staff magazine on the use of breast binders for trans children.

The partnership, which also owns Waitrose, published the first issue of 'Identity' – a 32-page internal magazine sent to all 70,000 of its employees – to coincide with 'the beginning of LGBTQ+ history month'.

It has been accused of 'contemptuous dismissal of staff', after launching the in-house magazine offering tips from a controversial transgender charity.

The partnership Articles also signposted parents to controversial charities including Mermaids UK and Stonewall and gave advice to parents on 'chest binders'.

The article 'Raising trans and non-binary children' made heavy reference to Mermaids, which is currently subject to investigation by the Charity Commission. 

The partnership published the first issue of 'Identity' (pictured above) – a 32-page internal magazine sent to all 70,000 of its employees – to coincide with 'the beginning of LGBTQ + history month'

It focuses on the experiences of a mother, who said that it was not unexpected that her child wanted to transition to be a boy as 'he hadn't worn anything girly since he was eight', The Telegraph reports.

It read: 'The Mermaids parents forum offers a safe and supportive space for parents to ask questions and learn from other parents of trans children.

'Mermaids offers a number of You Tube videos and tips for both parents and trans children on their website.

'Social media has also helped spread the word, with influencers sharing their own personal experiences with transitioning.

'Some also share tips on how to safely use clothing and equipment to achieve a person's desired gender identity, for example, chest binders.'

Other items included in the magazine were word searches for LGBTQ+ terms and a calendar recognising the likes of 'pansexual and panromantic visibility day'. 

The magazine's publication has been criticised as being 'packed with hyperbole, scaremongering and ideologically driven content' by women’s rights groups.

Helen Joyce of Sex Matters, said: 'We've known for some time that many big retailers have embraced trans ideology, but this newsletter really demonstrates how far brands are willing to go to placate the vocal minority of activists on their staff.

'Packed with hyperbole, scaremongering and ideologically driven content, it's a complete departure from the culture and values people associate with the John Lewis brand.

'It's a contemptuous dismissal of staff members who – like most people in this country – believe that sex is binary and more important than identity, and value sex-based rights.'

The full article is here (and see further below 😎):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13091007/John-Lewis-boycott-trans-magazine-breast-binders-children.html

Street Epistemology

Stella O’Malley of Genspect and Mr Menno take part in a Peter Boghossian Street Epistemology session. Mr Menno really nails it in my opinion. All comments gratefully received.

https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1757441291909017913

Simon Fanshawe

Congratulations to Simon Fanshawe on being appointed Rector at Edinburgh University. I suggest the University study the Jo Phoenix tribunal judgment against the Open University 😊

Georgina Cutler in GB News ( Trans activists left furious after critic of LGBT charity appointed to senior Edinburgh University job 14 February) reports:

A trans row has erupted at Edinburgh University after a critic of the LGBT charity Stonewall was appointed as Rector.

Simon Fanshawe helped found the charity in 1989, but in 2019 he signed an open letter accusing Stonewall of undermining "women’s sex-based rights and protections" and "demonising" anyone who disagrees with its gender policies as transphobic.

The former comedian will start the position next month after he was elected unopposed.

His appointment has been welcomed by free speech campaigners but has faced backlash from critics who have called for it to be blocked.

Simon Fanshawe© GB News

Transgender rights campaigners are rallying support for an open letter, asking the university to reject the appointment and find "a true advocate of equality, accessibility, diversity and inclusion" instead.

They claim that Fanshawe: "Creates a hostile environment for the many trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming students studying at the university".

The full article is here:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/trans-activists-left-furious-after-critic-of-lgbt-charity-appointed-to-senior-edinburgh-university-job/ar-BB1igfZg?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2e6fdd8b42fb401fb6fc99514dc7ff77&ei=53

The Green Party - Purge of the Sex Realists?

Thanks again to Feminist Legal Clinic for forwarding this from The Critic:

How the Greens blackened their name | Nathan Williams ( 17 February)

At the end of my last article about the sorry state of the party, I ended by saying I was seriously considering whether I wanted to remain as a member. Turns out I didn’t need to bother resigning — soon after, I received notice that I had been suspended from the party. My crime was my previous article which revealed, based on their own legal guidance, that the Green Party has been illegally discriminating against members with Gender Critical beliefs.

Of course, if my claims had been false there might have been some justification for action against me. But we now know that I was correct — the party has been unlawful. This was confirmed in an important court judgement released last week (9th Feb 2024).

Shahrar Ali is a significant figure in the Green Party. He was deputy leader from 2014-2016, and in June 2021 he was appointed as the party spokesperson on policing matters. However he is also significant because he is one of the few leading figures who has spoken out against the gender identity ideology that has taken over large parts of the party.

You can see the full judgement for yourself, and I don’t think any fair person could read that and not conclude that Shahrar had been discriminated against on the basis of his beliefs.

So what does this all mean for the Green Party? Its immediate problem is that there are a number of other cases in the pipeline from women who have allegedly faced even worse treatment than Shahrar and have been expelled or suspended.

Assuming the party somehow survives the coming cases, well — what then? I think it faces an existential choice. Some in the party have already taken the message of the judgement as being tacit approval for a final purge of all GC members. They believe that if they get the right procedures in place they can then expel anyone who doesn’t sign up to all the tenets of their ideology and make the Green Party pure.

I don’t write this expecting to persuade any of the self-proclaimed Trans Rights Activists in the party. But if you’re a member who wants the party to survive in some form then I urge you to get involved and put pressure on the party to see sense.

Source: How the Greens blackened their name | Nathan Williams | The Critic Magazine

Endpiece

Seen in a Waitrose store today 😊

Meanwhile my wife informs me that Terfs have been having fun on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/IPerenium/status/1758551617484308782

https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1758810117313585245

I’m still stuck on The Dubliners to spur me on as we approach the Referendum!! Here is Luke Kelly doing The Rare Old Times ( great photos!!)

The next update will probably be on Tuesday 😎

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.