I know that this is a drop in the ocean but I wrote to three Scottish local papers who reported the Denen STEVEN Anderson story. I wrote as follows:
Dear Editor,
The title and the use of "woman" and female pronouns for your story above is deeply misleading, and gives a completely false idea of the identity and motivation of this criminal. As the court document reveals this person is of course a biological male, Denen STEVEN Anderson, a fact which which should have been made clear.
It is entirely wrong to ascribe "rape" to women as they do not possess a penis. And similarly everyone knows that women do not collect child abuse material or fantasize about child abuse, as this criminal did. Women are occasionally convicted of child neglect, such as the case of Victoria Climbie. These are not cases of sexual abuse.
Why is the sex class of women being subjected to such targetted and very malicious slurs? I object very strongly on behalf of all women. This is mysogyny. We do not go around accusing men of being sexual predators unless they actually are sexual predators, as Denen STEVEN Anderson obviously is.
Can you please assure me that you will try to stick more closely to the facts when reporting?
I find it hard to believe senior people in BBC governance aren’t aware of what’s going on, but perhaps their strategic level thinking leads to less overview on operational matters. Through my DH I know personally a (non exec) member of the BBC board. Do people here think there is any point in contacting him about the level of bias and lack of balance in this area?
On Monday I wrote to the Director General Tim Davie and all 12 Trustees of the BBC about my complaint about the Woman's Hour programme of 20th October: Jane Garvie tossed in the slur about WPUK, FPFW and FiLiA: ".... which some people, in some circumstances, have called transphobic". I had chased this in a ping-pong battle up their complaints chain three times to the Executive Complaints Unit (!) and its Director. This was the final "rally". I managed to insert a slightly wider point:
"In your letter you accurately relate first the context and then the words of Professor Pedersen leading to Garvey's libellous statement. Both Garvey and you failed to address the real question, the one burning on women's lips: why were the contributors to Mumsnet obliged to bring their feminist conversation about proposed reform of the GRA 2004 to the unlikely venue of Mumsnet? Garvey was unable to discuss this matter of enormous consequence to women... and instead Garvey uttered her gratuitous libellous comment. I listened live to the programme and I was shocked. So were other women listeners with whom I consulted later. The fact is that this subject is “too hot to handle” in the BBC. It is impossible for the BBC to mention the actual clash of rights (women's sex-based rights vs “gender” rights) created by the GRA 2004. I want Trustees to read this truth. Garvey's accusation of “transphobia” is (1) offensive and libellous, and (2) quite simply wrong as an investigation of their websites would show."
I want to BORE their EARS OFF with my complaints LOL, LOL, LOL!
I love your determination and that you keep writing. Have you gotten any further with your transwidow's law suits? I will contribute what I can, if you put up a Gofundme or similar, please let us know.
I have approached a solicitor 2 weeks ago to start the first action. This is the solicitor, not the barrister who acted for Kate Scottow. I do want the team. I will chase next week. And I have joined Sarah Phillimore's GRA Repeal/Reform Group: https://gcritical.org/2020/10/05/the-grarg-manifesto/ There is another meeting this evening.
The situation is delicate as Prof Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, JK Rowling, etc. who are the "first troops" are compelled to endorse the notion of recognising "gender" in order to gain recognition (!) We are the second wave.
All these grifters are laughing their heads off that the police, the judiciary and the media are dancing to their tune. Why are people in charge of the first two, who are, let’s face it, mostly men, standing for this insult, too? They are being manipulated by literally the worst and often the stupidest people imaginable, do they not feel insulted?
Men do not feel solidarity with the immediate danger which women face (across all classes and income levels). It is hard to get a man to take up arms to defend a woman's rights unless they feel the pain of their women. Graham and Harry Miller, to take two examples, really do understand. So does Alan Henness and so did my father, who is now dead. But, really, why should they bother? I can see how easy it is to leave the battle to others.... to women.
And the police and the judges know that the transsexual men will have a terrible time after they mess up their heads and their bodies with cross-sex hormones, let alone surgery. They just think: "Let them get on with it".
Not to mention most men who larp as women have nothing done to them at all, no hormones, no surgery, nothing, they just turn up and say "I'm a laydee, give me all your rights".
I had the misfortunate to be married to a genuine transsexual man. He left us in July 2006 and he had his wedding tackle removed in February 2010. I saw the surgeon's invoice (my divorce solicitor asked for it!). So my experience is of the truly insane gas-lighting (4 years of intense taunting), not the "criminal" gas-lighting....or perhaps they are both criminal gas-lighting? At some point insanity this demanding, this narcissistic, this callous and reckless shades into criminality.
The judiciary should turn their attention to the criminallity of their behaviour: the harm which they have done, and the clear risk which they present to the public, especially women.
Yes, I read your story about the awful things they did to your ex husband, and horrible gaslighting behaviour to you. I cannot imagine. Your bravery is astonishing. And yes, men's feelpinions are not relevant, and should not take precedence over the law.
Yes, but these are not transsexuals, it’s obvious to absolutely EVERYONE these men are taking the piss. They should be offended, even if they don’t give a jot about women. Plenty of men like to show other men who is the boss - that’s actually why we live in patriarchy.
Men (as a sex) will always. Always. Come down on the side of other men. The entire system is set up to do so. There are occasional exceptions to this, such as Graham. Most men with any power will not use it to help women. Citation: all of written history.
Well, yes, but there is also hierarchy, replicated everywhere - you see it most clearly in gangs, mafia etc - there are men who fight and actively seek to suppress other men and many men, for example in the incel movement, who see more successful, powerful males (the so called Chads) as their enemies. Controlling other men is basically what policemen are paid to do, as the vast majority of crime is committed by men. If we are talking of deeply embedded cultural or even evolutionary patterns, then both the police and the judges would not normally pass up on using their powers against these grifters. It is because other men have made it harder, if not impossible, that they don’t.
The judges are tripped up at two stages: (1) The definition of "gender reassignment" in Equality Act 2010 is so wide that all the accused has to do is say: "I am undergoing GR" and everyone is BY LAW obliged to accept this. Even the judges, even in a criminal court! (2) the sentencing part of the Crown Court Compendium (the "Bench Book") instructs the judges to take into account (again!) all the 9 protected characteristics.
And we don't have enough prison cells and we don't want to "blight the lives" of the mentally confused (as if they are genuinely mentally confused). Don't get me onto politics: we should give people more and better paying jobs to give them a purpose in life.
The BBC has just sent round a survey asking what the public think about their service - I really enjoyed telling them that their marxist leftilib pcwokeness and their utter shameful bias in reporting neutrally and more important factually will be their end - I also said i was glad to not contribute to the coffers of the Trans B Corp any longer and wish them a speedy demise.
Ooh. I'm sorry, I have problems with some of what you say. I do not wish the BBC a "speedy demise". Although the woke brigade is powerful at the moment, it does not have to be this way forever. They do change with time. The BBC is one of the few national public service broadcasters who are truly independent on most matters. Don't throw out baby with bathwater.
I also responded to the survey.
I included the following:
Q: “Can you tell us a bit more about why you gave the BBC the ranking which you did?”
You are being strangled by Gov policy to privatize or outsource all parts of your business. I want to keep the BBC as the UK's public sector broadcaster. The US has nothing to compare with your generally excellent output and I will do everything I can, including PAYING MORE FOR MY LICENCE, to keep you independent and doing more of what you have always done well. But I have one specific request: for the sake of impartiality, the BBC should not be a “Stonewall diversity champion” because this means supporting their “trans” lobbying. You should not be paying Stonewall ca. £3K per year as a kind of extortion payment. And for that matter Ofcom should also cease to be a Stonewall diversity champion. Rationale: the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” within the BBC should receive no more special attention than any other protected characteristic, e.g. sex or disability. This issue is apparently “too hot to handle” now, but it will have to be addressed. It is time to uphold and champion women's sex-based rights too. Women must not be erased.
Comment on BBC news: “The BBC has censored “gender-critical” views on the clash between women's sex-based rights and the “gender”-based claims of trans or gender dysphoria sufferers.
Although, I wouldn't call them Marxist. They have no understanding of or acceptance of class structures, or class issues when it comes to women having almost no power and almost no protection due to their economic circumstances (most working class women) and little power but some protection (lib fems generally who are happy to allow their sisters to be raped in a toilet). Lib fems dick panderers generally don't come from real working class environments, class is a big divider, I've never talked to a genuinely working class women who is stupid or selfish enough to think men should be handed the key to access women and children.
The Beeb very definitely are cowardly wokemongering gynophobes though.
BBC has not learnt from the Saville Scandal has it? They are still not learning. They seem not even willing to learn. I can hear Magdalen Berns yelling from her resting place that no one is listening. How do we stop this?
Meanwhile in America, with a pen stroke the hair sniffer has just stripped 150 million women of all sex based human rights. I tried to tell the wokemongerers, but they would not listen. I hope to God someone can challenge the vicious old bastard's executive order. What he just did to the women of America is pure evil.
I wonder why anyone ever thinks that a man who is touchy feely and sniffs women's hair, is clearly a creepy old weasel, is going to be an advocate for women's human rights. Extrapolate. No matter who he is or what his excuse, if he behaves creepily to women, he doesn't care about women - at best.
I know that this is a drop in the ocean but I wrote to three Scottish local papers who reported the Denen STEVEN Anderson story. I wrote as follows:
Dear Editor,
The title and the use of "woman" and female pronouns for your story above is deeply misleading, and gives a completely false idea of the identity and motivation of this criminal. As the court document reveals this person is of course a biological male, Denen STEVEN Anderson, a fact which which should have been made clear.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6bcdf9ee-71cc-4c2e-b493-dcf3a188d6d4_1914x712.jpeg
https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/denen-anderson-dundee-court/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=sharelink
You could have used an alternative and more accurate description, such as this title from the Metro: "Trans woman jailed for 15 years..." - https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/
It is entirely wrong to ascribe "rape" to women as they do not possess a penis. And similarly everyone knows that women do not collect child abuse material or fantasize about child abuse, as this criminal did. Women are occasionally convicted of child neglect, such as the case of Victoria Climbie. These are not cases of sexual abuse.
Why is the sex class of women being subjected to such targetted and very malicious slurs? I object very strongly on behalf of all women. This is mysogyny. We do not go around accusing men of being sexual predators unless they actually are sexual predators, as Denen STEVEN Anderson obviously is.
Can you please assure me that you will try to stick more closely to the facts when reporting?
Thank you.
Una-Jane Winfield
(Transwidow)
I find it hard to believe senior people in BBC governance aren’t aware of what’s going on, but perhaps their strategic level thinking leads to less overview on operational matters. Through my DH I know personally a (non exec) member of the BBC board. Do people here think there is any point in contacting him about the level of bias and lack of balance in this area?
I would say so!
(I love writing letters!)
On Monday I wrote to the Director General Tim Davie and all 12 Trustees of the BBC about my complaint about the Woman's Hour programme of 20th October: Jane Garvie tossed in the slur about WPUK, FPFW and FiLiA: ".... which some people, in some circumstances, have called transphobic". I had chased this in a ping-pong battle up their complaints chain three times to the Executive Complaints Unit (!) and its Director. This was the final "rally". I managed to insert a slightly wider point:
"In your letter you accurately relate first the context and then the words of Professor Pedersen leading to Garvey's libellous statement. Both Garvey and you failed to address the real question, the one burning on women's lips: why were the contributors to Mumsnet obliged to bring their feminist conversation about proposed reform of the GRA 2004 to the unlikely venue of Mumsnet? Garvey was unable to discuss this matter of enormous consequence to women... and instead Garvey uttered her gratuitous libellous comment. I listened live to the programme and I was shocked. So were other women listeners with whom I consulted later. The fact is that this subject is “too hot to handle” in the BBC. It is impossible for the BBC to mention the actual clash of rights (women's sex-based rights vs “gender” rights) created by the GRA 2004. I want Trustees to read this truth. Garvey's accusation of “transphobia” is (1) offensive and libellous, and (2) quite simply wrong as an investigation of their websites would show."
I want to BORE their EARS OFF with my complaints LOL, LOL, LOL!
I love your determination and that you keep writing. Have you gotten any further with your transwidow's law suits? I will contribute what I can, if you put up a Gofundme or similar, please let us know.
I have approached a solicitor 2 weeks ago to start the first action. This is the solicitor, not the barrister who acted for Kate Scottow. I do want the team. I will chase next week. And I have joined Sarah Phillimore's GRA Repeal/Reform Group: https://gcritical.org/2020/10/05/the-grarg-manifesto/ There is another meeting this evening.
The situation is delicate as Prof Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, JK Rowling, etc. who are the "first troops" are compelled to endorse the notion of recognising "gender" in order to gain recognition (!) We are the second wave.
Delighted to read this manifesto. I'll read through the site, thank you :)
Send them this link. And tell them about it. Maybe badger them till they listen and peak about it?
Definitely worth a shot. Good luck.
All these grifters are laughing their heads off that the police, the judiciary and the media are dancing to their tune. Why are people in charge of the first two, who are, let’s face it, mostly men, standing for this insult, too? They are being manipulated by literally the worst and often the stupidest people imaginable, do they not feel insulted?
Men do not feel solidarity with the immediate danger which women face (across all classes and income levels). It is hard to get a man to take up arms to defend a woman's rights unless they feel the pain of their women. Graham and Harry Miller, to take two examples, really do understand. So does Alan Henness and so did my father, who is now dead. But, really, why should they bother? I can see how easy it is to leave the battle to others.... to women.
And the police and the judges know that the transsexual men will have a terrible time after they mess up their heads and their bodies with cross-sex hormones, let alone surgery. They just think: "Let them get on with it".
Not to mention most men who larp as women have nothing done to them at all, no hormones, no surgery, nothing, they just turn up and say "I'm a laydee, give me all your rights".
I had the misfortunate to be married to a genuine transsexual man. He left us in July 2006 and he had his wedding tackle removed in February 2010. I saw the surgeon's invoice (my divorce solicitor asked for it!). So my experience is of the truly insane gas-lighting (4 years of intense taunting), not the "criminal" gas-lighting....or perhaps they are both criminal gas-lighting? At some point insanity this demanding, this narcissistic, this callous and reckless shades into criminality.
The judiciary should turn their attention to the criminallity of their behaviour: the harm which they have done, and the clear risk which they present to the public, especially women.
Yes, I read your story about the awful things they did to your ex husband, and horrible gaslighting behaviour to you. I cannot imagine. Your bravery is astonishing. And yes, men's feelpinions are not relevant, and should not take precedence over the law.
Yes, but these are not transsexuals, it’s obvious to absolutely EVERYONE these men are taking the piss. They should be offended, even if they don’t give a jot about women. Plenty of men like to show other men who is the boss - that’s actually why we live in patriarchy.
Men (as a sex) will always. Always. Come down on the side of other men. The entire system is set up to do so. There are occasional exceptions to this, such as Graham. Most men with any power will not use it to help women. Citation: all of written history.
Well, yes, but there is also hierarchy, replicated everywhere - you see it most clearly in gangs, mafia etc - there are men who fight and actively seek to suppress other men and many men, for example in the incel movement, who see more successful, powerful males (the so called Chads) as their enemies. Controlling other men is basically what policemen are paid to do, as the vast majority of crime is committed by men. If we are talking of deeply embedded cultural or even evolutionary patterns, then both the police and the judges would not normally pass up on using their powers against these grifters. It is because other men have made it harder, if not impossible, that they don’t.
The judges are tripped up at two stages: (1) The definition of "gender reassignment" in Equality Act 2010 is so wide that all the accused has to do is say: "I am undergoing GR" and everyone is BY LAW obliged to accept this. Even the judges, even in a criminal court! (2) the sentencing part of the Crown Court Compendium (the "Bench Book") instructs the judges to take into account (again!) all the 9 protected characteristics.
And we don't have enough prison cells and we don't want to "blight the lives" of the mentally confused (as if they are genuinely mentally confused). Don't get me onto politics: we should give people more and better paying jobs to give them a purpose in life.
But there aren't 9 protected characteristics..Gender ID is not protected.
Any man who just decides to ID as female when faced with legal action should be told so.
And should also be made to prove his GRC.
There are 9 protected characteristics:
(1) age, (2) disability, (3) gender reassignment, (4) marriage and civil partnership, (5) pregnancy and maternity, (6) race, (7) religion or belief,
(8) sex and (9) sexual orientation.
The BBC has just sent round a survey asking what the public think about their service - I really enjoyed telling them that their marxist leftilib pcwokeness and their utter shameful bias in reporting neutrally and more important factually will be their end - I also said i was glad to not contribute to the coffers of the Trans B Corp any longer and wish them a speedy demise.
Ooh. I'm sorry, I have problems with some of what you say. I do not wish the BBC a "speedy demise". Although the woke brigade is powerful at the moment, it does not have to be this way forever. They do change with time. The BBC is one of the few national public service broadcasters who are truly independent on most matters. Don't throw out baby with bathwater.
I also responded to the survey.
I included the following:
Q: “Can you tell us a bit more about why you gave the BBC the ranking which you did?”
You are being strangled by Gov policy to privatize or outsource all parts of your business. I want to keep the BBC as the UK's public sector broadcaster. The US has nothing to compare with your generally excellent output and I will do everything I can, including PAYING MORE FOR MY LICENCE, to keep you independent and doing more of what you have always done well. But I have one specific request: for the sake of impartiality, the BBC should not be a “Stonewall diversity champion” because this means supporting their “trans” lobbying. You should not be paying Stonewall ca. £3K per year as a kind of extortion payment. And for that matter Ofcom should also cease to be a Stonewall diversity champion. Rationale: the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” within the BBC should receive no more special attention than any other protected characteristic, e.g. sex or disability. This issue is apparently “too hot to handle” now, but it will have to be addressed. It is time to uphold and champion women's sex-based rights too. Women must not be erased.
Comment on BBC news: “The BBC has censored “gender-critical” views on the clash between women's sex-based rights and the “gender”-based claims of trans or gender dysphoria sufferers.
Although, I wouldn't call them Marxist. They have no understanding of or acceptance of class structures, or class issues when it comes to women having almost no power and almost no protection due to their economic circumstances (most working class women) and little power but some protection (lib fems generally who are happy to allow their sisters to be raped in a toilet). Lib fems dick panderers generally don't come from real working class environments, class is a big divider, I've never talked to a genuinely working class women who is stupid or selfish enough to think men should be handed the key to access women and children.
The Beeb very definitely are cowardly wokemongering gynophobes though.
Agree. I want them and the ABC here gone, gone, gone. Sack the fucking lot of them.
BBC has not learnt from the Saville Scandal has it? They are still not learning. They seem not even willing to learn. I can hear Magdalen Berns yelling from her resting place that no one is listening. How do we stop this?
Meanwhile in America, with a pen stroke the hair sniffer has just stripped 150 million women of all sex based human rights. I tried to tell the wokemongerers, but they would not listen. I hope to God someone can challenge the vicious old bastard's executive order. What he just did to the women of America is pure evil.
The transtaliban now has control.
I wonder why anyone ever thinks that a man who is touchy feely and sniffs women's hair, is clearly a creepy old weasel, is going to be an advocate for women's human rights. Extrapolate. No matter who he is or what his excuse, if he behaves creepily to women, he doesn't care about women - at best.