A Week in the War on Women: Monday 4th October - Sunday 10th October
Monday 4th October - Good Law Gone Bad
Jo Maugham’s Good Law Project has instigated legal action against the NHS.
Together with trans lobby group, Gendered Intelligence, US hormone trade organisation, the Endocrine Society, and youth sexual health charity, Brook, the Good Law Project is bringing judicial review proceedings against what it describes as “NHS England’s unlawful and discriminatory approach to health care for transgender adolescents”.
The project describes puberty blockers as a ‘safe treatment’ and a ‘breathing space’ (both claims which have been widely discredited) and seeks to facilitate the medicalisation of gender non-conforming children.
The Good Law Project crowd-funds specifically for its ‘Legal Defence Fund for Transgender Lives’, the advisory board of which has some noteworthy members:
CN “They/Them” Lester, a trans activist, writer and performer, co-founder of the “UK's first national queer youth organisation” and author of Trans Like Me.
Sabah “They/Them” Choudrey who works for Gendered Intelligence.
Alex Sharpe, a trans-identified male and vociferous trans activist who wrote an article defending the housing of trans identified males in the female estate.
Mridrul Madhwa, a trans-identified male who concealed his true sex to obtain employment at a rape crisis centre.
Can the Good Law Project be unaware that this week two leading clinicians in the field of transgender medicine have spoken out against affirming treatment and the prescribing of puberty blockers to minors? Or are they choosing to ignore it?
Also Today - The Clocks Are Striking Thirteen In British Columbia
THE INDEPENDENT: A Canadian tribunal has ruled that refusing to use preferred pronouns is a ‘human rights offence’.
A ‘transgender, non-binary’ (how is it possible to be both?) restaurant employee was awarded $30,000 in the settlement of an employment dispute.
Jessie Nelson is female but uses they/them’ pronouns. After being fired from her job at a restaurant in British Columbia, she took legal action via the human rights tribunal.
She claimed that the manager had used ‘gendered nicknames’ like ‘sweetheart’, ‘pinky’ and ‘honey’. Her issue with these names was not that they are sexist and demeaning, but that they ‘misgendered’ her. She also complained that the manager had persistently referred to her with female pronouns.
The tribunal ruled that Nelson being ‘misgendered’ was a violation of her human rights. The restaurant was ordered to pay her $30,000 in damages and also to “Implement a pronoun policy and mandatory training for all staff and managers about diversity, equity and inclusion”.
Tuesday 5th October - Women Are Not Safe On NHS Wards
THE TELEGRAPH: NHS Trusts are prioritising trans-identified males on female-only wards, gaslighting patients and threatening staff who object.
NHS nurse, Dr Sinead Helyar, spoke to a panel organised by parliamentary campaign group, Children and Women First, at the Conservative Party conference this week.
She said that NHS policy is ‘formulated and enacted to the detriment of women’ and explained that many NHS trusts prioritise trans-identified males over women, accommodating them on female-only wards with no concern for female patients.
Certain official NHS documents describe female patients as 'transphobes' and 'offenders' and equates them with racists if they object to being accommodated with males. A Greater Glasgow and Clyde Trust policy compels staff to lie to such patients and “Reiterate that the ward is indeed female only and that there are no men present”.
Dr Helyar gave an example of the consequences of such policies. “In one mental health trust, a male who identifies as a woman was placed on a female ward with observation. This patient complained that the observation was discriminatory, and it was removed. The patient went on to sexually assault two women patients. The same patient was placed on a female ward on a subsequent admission, and each time assaulted women. Staff concerns were ignored.
NHS staff are intimidated into silence on this issue. “Policies prevent staff from speaking out even when there are clear safeguarding concerns and questioning any aspects will be perceived as anti-trans, with consequences including a disciplinary - and in some cases being charged with a criminal offence.”
Perhaps most alarmingly, some trusts have even decided that a history of sexual violence is not necessarily a bar to placing a trans-identified male on female wards. One such trust is Nottinghamshire, a Stonewall ‘star performer’.
The NHS has just awarded Stonewall a £220,000 contract to operate its Rainbow Badge ‘assessment model’. This ‘initiative’ is intended to “Benchmark and award NHS organisations for their work on LGBT+ inclusion”. In other words, the imposition of gender ideology across the NHS through competitive subordination.
Wednesday 6th October - Contempt Of Court
Earlier this year we reported on an article in the Canadian Lawyer Magazine.
The article concerned British Columbia’s adoption of preferred pronoun use in court. BC court ‘practice directions’ now require lawyers and ‘parties’ (ie defendants, plaintiffs etc) to state their preferred pronouns at the beginning of proceedings. All participants, including the judge, must adhere to these choices.
Consequently, a rape victim giving evidence will be compelled to refer to her attacker with female pronouns if they are his stated preference.
Lawyer, Shahdin Farsai, discussed her three areas of concern - potentially compelled speech in court, a breach of privacy rights and damage to the perception of judicial impartiality - in an article for the Canadian Lawyer Magazine. Soon after publication, the Gender Stasi bullied the magazine into removing the article from its website.
This week, together with colleague, James Heller, Shahdin Farsai brought a resolution before the Law Society of British Columbia’s AGM. It called for a debate on the same ‘practice directive’ which requires preferred pronouns to be used in court. A debate, nothing more.
Almost immediately, the Canadian Bar Association and the BC Trial Lawyers Association issued statements calling for their members to oppose the resolution.
Even more alarming was the reaction of Law Society benchers to Heller and Farsai’s Resolution 1. In an obvious attempt to shut down any future dissention, they proposed that resolutions should need the signatures of 50 members before being put forward at an AGM (instead of the two currently required) and giving the President sole power to veto any resolution put forward. Thankfully, neither resolution was successful but that they were even considered at all is shocking.
Heller and Farsai’s Resolution 1 was defeated with 1415 votes in favour, 1948 against and 344 abstentions. The Canadian legal profession voted against free speech.
Thursday 7th October - Salem In Sussex
THE TIMES: Trans activists tried to hound a feminist lesbian academic out of her job because they don’t approve of her views on sex and gender.
Kathleen Stock is a philosophy professor at Sussex University. She’s also a feminist, lesbian, trustee of the LGB Alliance and author of Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism, a critique of gender identity ideology.
This week, though certainly not for the first time, she has suffered bullying, intimidation and threats to her career and personal safety from trans activists. She has subsequently been advised to install cameras at her home and use bodyguards if on campus. The police have put a priority marker on her phone.
An anonymous group calling itself ‘Anti Terf Sussex’ and apparently dedicated to the harassment and bullying of Professor Stock seems to have instigated the campaign against her.
Online it accused Professor Stock of being “Anti-feminist, anti-queer and anti-intellectual” and “One of this wretched island’s most prominent transphobes”.
Posters appeared around the university campus alleging that Professor Stock somehow makes trans students ‘unsafe’ and demanding that she be fired.
‘Anti Terf Sussex’ posted a photograph to its Instagram account of (presumably) a group member, face covered guerrilla-style, letting off a smoking flare and holding a banner reading ‘Stock out’.
It concluded with an ominous warning to the university; “Our demand is simple: Fire Kathleen Stock. Until then, you’ll see us around.”
Friday 8th October - Continental Drift
UNHERD: A potential ruling from the Council of Europe could affect women’s sex-based rights in the UK.
The UK has left the EU but it remains a member of the Council of Europe, a separate organisation based in Strasbourg which comprises 47 European member countries and was established to defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
In 2015 its Parliamentary Assembly passed a resolution which calls on members to:
Enshrine gender identity as a protected characteristic in anti-discrimination legislation and policies.
Allow legal gender recognition based on self-determination, regardless of age.
Fund gender reassignment treatment and make it accessible to adults and children alike.
This Parliamentary Assembly remains keen to push gender identity ideology. Last week, its Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination published a provisional report on “Combating rising hate against LGBTI people in Europe”.
“The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives which reduce the fight for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as ‘gender ideology’ or ‘LGBTI ideology’. Such narratives deny the very existence of LGBTI people, dehumanise them, and often falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights.”
The UK is given a special mention in an explanatory memorandum:
“In the United Kingdom, anti-trans rhetoric, arguing that sex is immutable and gender identities not valid, has also been gaining baseless and concerning credibility, at the expense of both trans people’s civil liberties and women’s and children’s rights… The ‘gender-critical’ movement, which wrongly portrays trans rights as posing a particular threat to cisgender women and girls, has played a significant role in this process.”
The recommendations in this report have been approved by committee and will be debated at the Parliamentary Assembly itself in January 2022. If passed, they could have serious consequences for women’s sex-based rights in the UK.
As Debbie Hayton writes, “Resolutions of the Council of Europe carry weight in the minds of politicians. When neither Boris Johnson nor Keir Starmer are willing to declare that only women have cervixes, the situation is desperate. They must not be gifted a new Council of Europe Resolution to hide behind.”
Saturday 9th October - Within These Walls
THE TELEGRAPH: Female prisoners forced to share accommodation with trans identified males could face punishment for ‘misgendering’ them.
Justice Minister, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar QC, has revealed that female prisoners who use ‘incorrect pronouns’ for trans-identified male inmates could be subject to disciplinary procedures and extra jail time.
‘Misgendering’ can be deemed an offence under Prison Rule 51(20) which prohibits ‘threatening abusive or insulting words’. Female prisoners using male pronouns for male prisoners who ‘identify’ as women could be referred to an independent adjudicator – a visiting judge – who has the power to increase their sentence.
Sunday 10th October - Ministry Of Untruth
THE DAILY MAIL: New Ministry of Defence guidance redefines the word ‘woman’ and prioritises gender identity over biological sex.
The Ministry of Defence has published a new ‘Inclusive Language Guide’ intended to ‘modernise’ the services. In a section called 'Woman or Female', the guide states that the words are often used interchangeably but mean different things. “Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of 'female' to 'woman' erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.”
The document includes a link to Stonewall’s website for 'further reading and resources'. The Ministry of Defence is a member of Stonewall’s diversity champions scheme.
Also Today - This Never Happens
4W: A man who allegedly concealed his sex to deceive and seduce women on a lesbian dating site has been acquitted of rape and indecent assault.
30-year-old Tsang Tsz-Ho met a 20-year-old woman through a Hong Kong based lesbian social-networking app called Butterfly. The pair then communicated via the HER lesbian dating app, (the dangers of which we’ve written previously on this site) before exchanging phone numbers.
They eventually agreed to meet in person and arranged a rendezvous at a hotel. Tsang remained clothed while they engaged in foreplay and the victim only realised that her date is male when he forcibly penetrated her.
The Hong Kong High Court acquitted Tsang of rape and indecent assault after the defence argued successfully that the victim had relationships with males in the past so could not feel deceived or disgusted by Tsang’s behaviour now. It was, they concluded, simply a ‘miscommunication’.
Exactly the sort of ‘miscommunication’ which the gender zealots who push for self ID swear has not, could not and will never happen.
See you next week.
The NHS giving Stonewall £220k of tax payers money is criminal and should be investigated - I hope someone has alerted Sajid whatsit to this as he is launching a massive investigation into how the money is spent (its not hard mate..its wasted on 'managers' and CEO's on £250k plus this shite
Re the NHS. I am currently in hospital and have been for a few days. The other day I was pushed past two toilets standing next to each other which had clearly been built as men’s and ladies’. They both had a big sign above them saying unisex. So, both had been repurposed/rebranded - no idea if they have added urinals to the old ladies, nor how long ago it was done. We went into the lift and I just innocently asked the two porters, So, what do you think about making the toilets unisex? One mumbled something inaudible. The other one (rainbow badge) looked embarrassed and said, I am not pro, nor anti. (English was not her first language). I didn’t say any more.