It is isn't it. It seems a very specific bit of the law (Dennis Kavanagh called it angels dancing on the head of a pin in his explanations with another case Bailey vs Stonewall). To get enough direct evidence of their deliberate intent seems very difficult. Or it's apparently not direct enough, despite it all stinking. And this took two years?
These supposed expert 'gender' organisations get very slippery when their advice/non-advice is taken up. The vulnerable people, often children, that they target. They then deny having any influence and deny it's even 'advice'. What is it then? What is their role? What can they be trusted to do, if they aren't experts and it's not advice? What have they been doing? The staff they employ do egregious things, then there's a big media spotlight when it's exposed, then they regrettably leave under a cloud. Nothing to see here. But it's all here in the archives - the depraved and abusive actions showing they do what the hell they like. All the repeated links to porn and online abuse sites. It's not just once - they plead ignorance every time yet another horror is exposed. Not actual medics but social media influencers who are 'gender experts' with PhDs in total shite. Huh?
The chain of events every time - set off and baited by Stonewall, Mermaids and the like, then the spread through politician mouthpieces and celebrities, with them overtly and deliberately relentlessly attacking people on social media. Spreading propaganda with no evidence. They've managed to change laws. Look at the influence Ashton Challenor was accorded. They've deplatformed, they've whipped up fear and confusion, they've had MPs spouting their claptrap. And Stonewall apparently had no influence over Garden Court Chambers? Nope, not us guv.
I agree - I can’t believe they didn’t find more, whistleblowers at GIDS spoke about the influence of Mermaids and there were emails from Susie Green to GIDS.
There's also a lot of other stuff, linked to that nest of fetishes with direct links to Mermaids. They employed people then all of a sudden their proclivities were made public. Many of their 'experts' or 'advisers' turned out were posing shit in forums with specific eunuch fetishes. Castrating boys and mutilating girls.
Yes wpath also linked to sites that had fantasies of castrating then murdering little boys.
'Oh but it's just fantasy stories,it's not real' they wail....yes buddy,if these are your fantasies I want you gone,shot out of a rocket to the moon preferably
hi Ella, Emma features in my mermaids song as the perfect example of a woman- which as far as i can tell is one of the main purposes of mermaids- to make children judge themselves and others. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYYS_wAsPk
Alright, already! Perfect timing, as the third teen and confused young thinker had contacted me, after he went on a search for "is trans real" or something. So now, I'm collecting data on kids, not just trans widows! He asked me my opinion about ideas surrounding whether one's face is male or female and the like. Later, I asked my wonderful handyman, "Did you have your man face when you were 14, 15?" Nope. Girls come to "bloom" as young women earlier than boys. Biological. I don't do "therapy" of course, just tell him I can give grandmotherly advice, like, "Brush and floss 2x a day."
As a teen in the 1970s, I had what I considered boyish features. Thankfully, I was gay, not confused about which sex I belonged to. Nevertheless, being around teen boys at boarding school who did have "man faces" was trying. It seemed to me that their precocious masculine appearance won them special treatment from peers and adults alike. There was probably something to that. Maybe looking more mature than their age gave their confidence a boost. My disadvantage, real or perceived, didn't make me want to take refuge in being a girl, though. Instead, it helped drive home the indisputable fact that life is unfair.
Thanks, Ollie. I'm going to copy this and use it in my next week's missives with "Paul." I really appreciate anything else you could add. There's a contact form at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
people at our school have seen first hand the needless pain caused by this ‘charity’. Shame on them. I tried to address their cruelty and how they teach children to reject themselves
About time too. Good news in certain respects but sadly the cult will already have planned it's way around any loopholes in the law and moved it's lies elsewhere. They're devious behaviour knows no bounds.
The big question now, is whether or not Cass has created the context for puberty blockers to be given to large numbers of confused children, in the New Year, under the guise of ‘clinical trials’. Why the recommendation for trials from her in the first place? We know the drugs are harmful, are of no evidenced benefit and lock children in to profound, irreversible harm for cosmetic effects in pursuit of an impossible goal. Listen to Cass’ R4 Woman’s Hour interview earlier this month, and notice the context in which the word ‘trivial’ occurs. A powerful narrative based on magical metamorphosis created by physician assisted self harm and state coercion, has completely captured all of our child safeguarding institutions. All of our institutions - we should not be surprised by this outcome.
It's hard to know if the thinking was 'there is no evidence, ok, so we get evidence'. Then, what's the usual way we do that, oh by clinical trials. It may be the instinctive reaction to being questioned. It was all fairly waffly at the time and I wondered if the hesitancy was because these were apparent sops to the gender brigade. But! But! How do we know for sure that jumping off cliffs is harmful! We demand clinical trials! It was slightly kicking the can down the road. Holding up clinical trials as a gold standard is a red herring.
It is a very odd feature that to go to get evidence of harm in some quasi scientific way means expected harm must be done in 'clinical trials'. As you say, we know it does harm. That premise seemed a capitulation to lunacy. It wouldn't be 'caution' or 'the scientific method' to state we need clinical trials to give us enough evidence that sticking forks in our eyes is a bad idea. It would be lunacy.
It's also difficult to establish how many are affected, and how many children or who are 'ageing' out of services. How many are employed in these new services, and many staff seemed to have messed up at Tavistock and other places and neatly moved into the 'new' services and other existing roles in wider paediatric and child health services (like with Rebecca Says No's recent article about RCPCH). I don't see these organisations and staff going from the pills and surgery pathway to proper diagnosis of co-morbidities, counselling and psychological interventions, and not without very clear guidance to do so.
Normally, knowingly risking causing harm to humans in any medical trials or even social experiments is regarded as unethical and not allowed? How are they managing to get around that? Unfortunately the stuff that went on during covid, seems to have harmed previous rules and medical ethics.
This is where trust is vital. I don't know enough about how clinical trials are conducted now to guess at that, but there is a total lack of trust in the clinicians who allowed and encouraged this to happen. They broke that trust. The health professions and many professional bodies as a whole have one by one been quietly withdrawing from Stonewall schemes and oddly thinking, what, that we wouldn't notice? I've been in a room with frightened students (from psychology courses) who were trying to speak up and out as recently as last year. They were still having genderology forced down their throats by tutors and fellow students. Being bullied. It's the Psychologists, Psychiatrists and all mental health services that were and still are pushing this, so a concentration on the literal prescribers of the pills or which should be prescribed is still hugely missing the point. It's the whole health and NHS system that was geared up to do this, plus random 'private' providers like the Webberleys. Even with evidence of harm, some still ignore that. How much evidence do they need? Some parts of health services passed to other parts in these conveyor belts - all seemingly pointing at each other speciality when it was repeatedly shown to be doing harm. GPs happily referring on to 'specialists'. How many GPs are still doing this? Where is their liability? And what are those 'specialists' doing? We need them to stop banging on about evidence as we know there is evidence of harm, and so do they and they need to admit what they did. Too many are still not doing that. If they can't admit what they did and how it is wrong, they will keep doing it. I still haven't seen any reassurances that the ideology has been rooted out of pathways. When we still have individual NHS hospital trusts pushing for the removal of words like woman and mother in their policies, or sitting on the fence saying 'not enough evidence' either way, or proudly displaying 'progress' pride flags, this ideology will still be deeply embedded in all their services.
When these 'new gender services' can't even get a job advert right, what does that say about how they are being run? Should early-career professionals work in them or not? We know we have a staff shortage for all mental health professionals. They still appear to be making it up on the hoof and it would be a good idea if they decided to change the habits of a lifetime and become transparent about what they are doing and communicate that to the public.
We really needed Cass to be a meta analysis of what we refer to as ‘trans’, the evidence for it being a mass formation psychosis, a social contagion, for example, within the medical profession itself. Cass obviously believes in the efficacy of ‘gender affirming care’ for adults and I think clearly revealed in her Woman’s Hour interview, that she believes that the fault lines lie in extant, diagnostic techniques for a ‘difficult to read’ child and adolescent cohort. Not in the notion of ‘gender identity’ itself - she is, after all, happy to use all the terms used by activists such as ‘assigned at birth’ and ‘non-binary’. Hence, the children on puberty blockers have been left on them (why, when we know they are dangerous?)and in her own words, unlimited numbers of children can be put in the ‘clinical trials’. My concern is that all that Cass is establishing, is that ‘a spoonful of talk therapy makes the medicine go down’. I really hope I am wrong but I can’t see that Cass is actually banning puberty blockers or questioning any of the basic tenants of ‘gender identity’. It’s basically the same reason why the Charity Commission has delivered a slap across the wrist for Mermaids, rather than a cancellation of their charitable status. I encourage everyone to listen to Cass’ Woman’s Hour interview - why does she say, for example, that as the average age of children going in puberty blocker was 15 - it would have been better for them to go straight onto cross sex hormones? My chin was on the floor at that point.
She steered totally aware from that didn't she? How we got to this point. That's how terms of reference for these inquiries are a minefield. The interim and final report seemed to be the start of a process, and evaluation of how this happened, then it's stalled. And I think too many were so desperate for something to be done that this seemed enough. I completely agree that the premise is wrong and we're still pandering to this delusion that this 'gender' situation created and funded for children is the same delusion that middle-aged men who like dressing up have. A lack of research and remarkably weak evidence. So, what is happening to address that? What are the new centres doing. What is the NIHR research?
And no, it doesn't take extra funding, or services, or expertise, or research or evidence or focus to burrow down to diagnose wrongbodyness, which doesn't exist. Why are so many still thinking they are, and being affirmatively 'treated' for that delusion? I haven't listened to the interview in full yet, but here's the link for everyone else and I will listen. Is it a path for desistance? More than 250,000 children were waiting at one point. "If we can get services right", but what does that look like? There seemed a pitch for young professionals to staff CAMHS. There doesn't seem discussion of tapering off and stopping blockers and fem/masc hormones or when. We still seem to be at the theory stage and 'waiting for clinical trial results'. Treatments for depression and anxiety are mentioned. Those aren't 'gender dysphoria' so were they all pushed under that label for convenience? For propaganda? Cass also mentions lack of cooperation from clinicians (adult clinics and no follow-up data) but they have now "expressed a willingness to cooperate". WTAF?
The promotion of subjective experience over empirical evidence and objective reality, the acceptance of physical harm as a valid treatment for psychological distress - Cass doesn’t address either of these. Perhaps because they are ideological positions protected by law, perhaps because she has friends or relatives with children who want to lie about their sex..? Who knows. She really needed to address just two questions. Have children been harmed? Who is responsible? I had no idea that the number of children seeking ‘services’ was as high as 250,000 but you are right in pointing out that the personnel operating the new services will, as likely as not, be activists. I increasingly think that only litigation starting in the US by those profoundly harmed ( particularly as children) by this utter madness, will end it. We can’t look to our child safeguarding institutions to do that job - today’s Charity Commission report proves it. The Cass Review proves it. I really want to be wrong.
i complained Dusty, first reply….. we can’t cover everything , 2nd reply…. we can’t cover everything and not many other people did either.
My faith in the bbc was really plummeted. I still listen a lot to radio 4 because i’m, well i think a bit lonely in the day and i like a lot of the programs like more or less. Anti social is good too. Woman’s hour can be good but its often a bit too heavy and frankly i’m finding the global doom a bit much.
Exactly… WTAF? I keep thinking that this elephant is so damn big it could seem from space & yet our own supposedly ‘trusted’ national broadcaster is silent. Do you think any of them mention it in their programme meetings? Do they all look shifty & say “No, we can’t go there” & discuss why - or does everyone in the room ignore it, never mention it & just pretend it doesn’t exist.
It still makes me almost palpitate with indignation, anger frustration, anger… Why aren’t we all outside the BBC offices in Regent Street screaming about this? That might get it on the news.. if no one’s going to organise this, then maybe I will. Who’s up for a pre-Christmas mass-demo?
It also occurs to me recently that we can get blinded a bit by 388 page reports and the like - I pause and think: what is the purpose of puberty blockers? You cannot 'transition'. You cannot change sex. End of discussion. If you are really distressed by your circumstances then let's get you some therapeutic help. I'm anorexic. OK starve yourself, that's a good idea!!
This gender drivel is all an incredible fiction manufactured by , quite frankly, evil people.
Is there any way you can find out (ie: FOI application) who the main donors to Mermaids are? I’m particularly interested in the largest ones, including bequests in wills.
FOI doesnt cover charities. But it does cover the NHS and Government. You can ask how much money comes from the public purse then look at their published accounts and find out how much comes from donations. They dont have to list donors individually, but most charities will thank big donors in their annual accounts which need to made available to the public if they ask. Mermaids possibly don't thank big donors publicly as they may not want to be that transparent.
FOI applies to public bodies so I'm not sure if it applies to charities or 'charity' in the case of Mermaids. There's also the data protection regulations to consider as private information would be being requested. It would be interesting to see who is happy to contribute to this vile organisation.
Wow this a significant ruling. But I don't have faith that this and other charities will be held to account. I mean surely if legally, any claims made need to be balanced and evidence-based for educational purposes and be based on the Cass review then surely most "trans" charities will have blank website. I'm not being flippant but by the standard demanded from this inquiry surely no trans charity can continue to function?
It seems the inquiry found what couldn’t be denied - the puberty blockers and the binders. The rest of the horrors perpetrated by this organisation were so well reported - if not documented - beforehand that those under investigation would’ve known what the inquiry was looking for. They had time to make sure their stories matched and then go into full denial mode. I have no idea if that is what actually happened but it seems consistent with an ideology that insists on “no debate”.
At the risk of over-commenting, I am posting here my response to Michael Bailey's article in Reality's Last Stand, the substack of evolutionary biologist, Colin Wright. Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would be Queen, about crossdressing, is challenging therapist Joe Burgo's claims that AGP stems from experiences of shame about homosexuality. Classic "I have a PhD and you don't," a pissing contest in the sexology world that we've all seen before. I worked it all in, apologize for the length, but detransition, iatrogenic harm and the abuse of trans widows is all there.
Ute Heggen Response to Michail Bailey Suggesting AGP Research Using Reddit-type Platforms
I write this to ask if Prof. Bailey is aware that Sam Kaye detransitioned, and is no longer Maya? This "son of transitioner" was used long ago by you and Blanchard and Cantor as a "case study" for the theorized "father to son" link. Sam, the son, had all the surgeries 25 years ago, now tells the world how much he regrets them on his YouTube channel, Call Me Sam. Bob Withers, a Jungian therapist in the UK, mentioned your citation of Maya (now back to Sam) Kaye in your research literature. The father-son dyads in this social contagion clearly do not represent a genetic or biological link, and the contagion in families now demonstrates just how this cult appeals and grooms towards dangerous medical treatments. The pornography link, unlike the father-son link, is clear in AGP behavior, based on the information from wives described below. The recent small but growing wave of deaths from sepsis and kidney failure attest to the iatrogenic harm of treatments the Blanchard Protocol culminated in, now completely collapsed to months or even weeks from the original 2 years. (Griffin Sivret, natal female, 24--sepsis Liam Johns, natal female, 35--kidney failure Yarden Seveira, natal male, 24, sepsis/suicide Surgeries at lauded institutions, Boston Children's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan) Liver cancer is cited also recently in a Mayo Clinic study.
As the ex wife of an AGP who says he's "true trans" and also says he's me, the mother of our 2 grown sons, I'd like you, Michael Bailey, together with Cantor, Blanchard and Zucker to put out a statement that you now have some idea of the trauma caused by these men to the women they married and the children they fathered, by behavior actually sanctioned by therapists. You've never commissioned an independent parallel study of us, despite Ray Blanchard's famous quote, "Oh, the women don't like it." These men do not self-report their domestic violence, coercive control and sexual demands in their therapy sessions with your colleagues in the field.
I collect the only data in the world on trans widows, and my results include 64 of us. A steady third were sexually assaulted by lingerie-wearing husband. These men often had serious alcohol abuse issues. Also a steady third of us were physically assaulted, as in strangulation, shoving into a wall, being pushed down the stairs, held in a vise-like hold until involuntary urination occurred. In the case of the 5 rapes, 3 repeated rapes, by AGP husband, none were prosecuted, though 1 brutal rape was reported to the Met Police in London and DNA evidence and witness statements were collected.
We typically cannot use our given names when we tell of our experiences, as husband still threatens defamation, violence in some cases, and cancellation by his friends and allies frequently follows. The new documentary on us: Behind the Looking Glass at Lime Soda Films by cancelled auteur, Vaishnavi Sundar.
You need to watch it, Michael Bailey. The above rates of violence, ritual manipulation and coercive control are evident in the testimonies of the 18 of us in Behind the Looking Glass. In my data are many women who stayed for 2 or 5 or 10 years, and they covered up the violence they experienced while staying, often not speaking of it until years after getting out.
Quite strange they found nothing more insidious when it's been screaming out from so many people for years.
What of the eunuch porn handily connected by a double click to pages aimed at younger boys? The list could go on but it's late😘
It is isn't it. It seems a very specific bit of the law (Dennis Kavanagh called it angels dancing on the head of a pin in his explanations with another case Bailey vs Stonewall). To get enough direct evidence of their deliberate intent seems very difficult. Or it's apparently not direct enough, despite it all stinking. And this took two years?
These supposed expert 'gender' organisations get very slippery when their advice/non-advice is taken up. The vulnerable people, often children, that they target. They then deny having any influence and deny it's even 'advice'. What is it then? What is their role? What can they be trusted to do, if they aren't experts and it's not advice? What have they been doing? The staff they employ do egregious things, then there's a big media spotlight when it's exposed, then they regrettably leave under a cloud. Nothing to see here. But it's all here in the archives - the depraved and abusive actions showing they do what the hell they like. All the repeated links to porn and online abuse sites. It's not just once - they plead ignorance every time yet another horror is exposed. Not actual medics but social media influencers who are 'gender experts' with PhDs in total shite. Huh?
The chain of events every time - set off and baited by Stonewall, Mermaids and the like, then the spread through politician mouthpieces and celebrities, with them overtly and deliberately relentlessly attacking people on social media. Spreading propaganda with no evidence. They've managed to change laws. Look at the influence Ashton Challenor was accorded. They've deplatformed, they've whipped up fear and confusion, they've had MPs spouting their claptrap. And Stonewall apparently had no influence over Garden Court Chambers? Nope, not us guv.
I agree - I can’t believe they didn’t find more, whistleblowers at GIDS spoke about the influence of Mermaids and there were emails from Susie Green to GIDS.
Yes, I thought I’d read a while ago about SG writing to refer young people to GIDS
Wasn't the eunuch stuff WPATH?
There's also a lot of other stuff, linked to that nest of fetishes with direct links to Mermaids. They employed people then all of a sudden their proclivities were made public. Many of their 'experts' or 'advisers' turned out were posing shit in forums with specific eunuch fetishes. Castrating boys and mutilating girls.
Yes wpath also linked to sites that had fantasies of castrating then murdering little boys.
'Oh but it's just fantasy stories,it's not real' they wail....yes buddy,if these are your fantasies I want you gone,shot out of a rocket to the moon preferably
Is this still Emma Watson's favourite charity?
hi Ella, Emma features in my mermaids song as the perfect example of a woman- which as far as i can tell is one of the main purposes of mermaids- to make children judge themselves and others. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYYS_wAsPk
Hey, that's good. Thanks for the link.
"providing binders through a charity could carry an implicit message of approval" - well duh.
Alright, already! Perfect timing, as the third teen and confused young thinker had contacted me, after he went on a search for "is trans real" or something. So now, I'm collecting data on kids, not just trans widows! He asked me my opinion about ideas surrounding whether one's face is male or female and the like. Later, I asked my wonderful handyman, "Did you have your man face when you were 14, 15?" Nope. Girls come to "bloom" as young women earlier than boys. Biological. I don't do "therapy" of course, just tell him I can give grandmotherly advice, like, "Brush and floss 2x a day."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDNnXPaqSaI
As a teen in the 1970s, I had what I considered boyish features. Thankfully, I was gay, not confused about which sex I belonged to. Nevertheless, being around teen boys at boarding school who did have "man faces" was trying. It seemed to me that their precocious masculine appearance won them special treatment from peers and adults alike. There was probably something to that. Maybe looking more mature than their age gave their confidence a boost. My disadvantage, real or perceived, didn't make me want to take refuge in being a girl, though. Instead, it helped drive home the indisputable fact that life is unfair.
Thanks, Ollie. I'm going to copy this and use it in my next week's missives with "Paul." I really appreciate anything else you could add. There's a contact form at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
You're welcome! I just caught a mistake: I wrote "too" when it should have been "to" in "confused about which sex I belonged to."
Also, I left out "man" in front of "faces," in the phrase "man faces."
I am usually a better proofreader.
people at our school have seen first hand the needless pain caused by this ‘charity’. Shame on them. I tried to address their cruelty and how they teach children to reject themselves
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYYS_wAsPk
About time too. Good news in certain respects but sadly the cult will already have planned it's way around any loopholes in the law and moved it's lies elsewhere. They're devious behaviour knows no bounds.
The big question now, is whether or not Cass has created the context for puberty blockers to be given to large numbers of confused children, in the New Year, under the guise of ‘clinical trials’. Why the recommendation for trials from her in the first place? We know the drugs are harmful, are of no evidenced benefit and lock children in to profound, irreversible harm for cosmetic effects in pursuit of an impossible goal. Listen to Cass’ R4 Woman’s Hour interview earlier this month, and notice the context in which the word ‘trivial’ occurs. A powerful narrative based on magical metamorphosis created by physician assisted self harm and state coercion, has completely captured all of our child safeguarding institutions. All of our institutions - we should not be surprised by this outcome.
It's hard to know if the thinking was 'there is no evidence, ok, so we get evidence'. Then, what's the usual way we do that, oh by clinical trials. It may be the instinctive reaction to being questioned. It was all fairly waffly at the time and I wondered if the hesitancy was because these were apparent sops to the gender brigade. But! But! How do we know for sure that jumping off cliffs is harmful! We demand clinical trials! It was slightly kicking the can down the road. Holding up clinical trials as a gold standard is a red herring.
It is a very odd feature that to go to get evidence of harm in some quasi scientific way means expected harm must be done in 'clinical trials'. As you say, we know it does harm. That premise seemed a capitulation to lunacy. It wouldn't be 'caution' or 'the scientific method' to state we need clinical trials to give us enough evidence that sticking forks in our eyes is a bad idea. It would be lunacy.
It's also difficult to establish how many are affected, and how many children or who are 'ageing' out of services. How many are employed in these new services, and many staff seemed to have messed up at Tavistock and other places and neatly moved into the 'new' services and other existing roles in wider paediatric and child health services (like with Rebecca Says No's recent article about RCPCH). I don't see these organisations and staff going from the pills and surgery pathway to proper diagnosis of co-morbidities, counselling and psychological interventions, and not without very clear guidance to do so.
Normally, knowingly risking causing harm to humans in any medical trials or even social experiments is regarded as unethical and not allowed? How are they managing to get around that? Unfortunately the stuff that went on during covid, seems to have harmed previous rules and medical ethics.
This is where trust is vital. I don't know enough about how clinical trials are conducted now to guess at that, but there is a total lack of trust in the clinicians who allowed and encouraged this to happen. They broke that trust. The health professions and many professional bodies as a whole have one by one been quietly withdrawing from Stonewall schemes and oddly thinking, what, that we wouldn't notice? I've been in a room with frightened students (from psychology courses) who were trying to speak up and out as recently as last year. They were still having genderology forced down their throats by tutors and fellow students. Being bullied. It's the Psychologists, Psychiatrists and all mental health services that were and still are pushing this, so a concentration on the literal prescribers of the pills or which should be prescribed is still hugely missing the point. It's the whole health and NHS system that was geared up to do this, plus random 'private' providers like the Webberleys. Even with evidence of harm, some still ignore that. How much evidence do they need? Some parts of health services passed to other parts in these conveyor belts - all seemingly pointing at each other speciality when it was repeatedly shown to be doing harm. GPs happily referring on to 'specialists'. How many GPs are still doing this? Where is their liability? And what are those 'specialists' doing? We need them to stop banging on about evidence as we know there is evidence of harm, and so do they and they need to admit what they did. Too many are still not doing that. If they can't admit what they did and how it is wrong, they will keep doing it. I still haven't seen any reassurances that the ideology has been rooted out of pathways. When we still have individual NHS hospital trusts pushing for the removal of words like woman and mother in their policies, or sitting on the fence saying 'not enough evidence' either way, or proudly displaying 'progress' pride flags, this ideology will still be deeply embedded in all their services.
When these 'new gender services' can't even get a job advert right, what does that say about how they are being run? Should early-career professionals work in them or not? We know we have a staff shortage for all mental health professionals. They still appear to be making it up on the hoof and it would be a good idea if they decided to change the habits of a lifetime and become transparent about what they are doing and communicate that to the public.
We really needed Cass to be a meta analysis of what we refer to as ‘trans’, the evidence for it being a mass formation psychosis, a social contagion, for example, within the medical profession itself. Cass obviously believes in the efficacy of ‘gender affirming care’ for adults and I think clearly revealed in her Woman’s Hour interview, that she believes that the fault lines lie in extant, diagnostic techniques for a ‘difficult to read’ child and adolescent cohort. Not in the notion of ‘gender identity’ itself - she is, after all, happy to use all the terms used by activists such as ‘assigned at birth’ and ‘non-binary’. Hence, the children on puberty blockers have been left on them (why, when we know they are dangerous?)and in her own words, unlimited numbers of children can be put in the ‘clinical trials’. My concern is that all that Cass is establishing, is that ‘a spoonful of talk therapy makes the medicine go down’. I really hope I am wrong but I can’t see that Cass is actually banning puberty blockers or questioning any of the basic tenants of ‘gender identity’. It’s basically the same reason why the Charity Commission has delivered a slap across the wrist for Mermaids, rather than a cancellation of their charitable status. I encourage everyone to listen to Cass’ Woman’s Hour interview - why does she say, for example, that as the average age of children going in puberty blocker was 15 - it would have been better for them to go straight onto cross sex hormones? My chin was on the floor at that point.
She steered totally aware from that didn't she? How we got to this point. That's how terms of reference for these inquiries are a minefield. The interim and final report seemed to be the start of a process, and evaluation of how this happened, then it's stalled. And I think too many were so desperate for something to be done that this seemed enough. I completely agree that the premise is wrong and we're still pandering to this delusion that this 'gender' situation created and funded for children is the same delusion that middle-aged men who like dressing up have. A lack of research and remarkably weak evidence. So, what is happening to address that? What are the new centres doing. What is the NIHR research?
And no, it doesn't take extra funding, or services, or expertise, or research or evidence or focus to burrow down to diagnose wrongbodyness, which doesn't exist. Why are so many still thinking they are, and being affirmatively 'treated' for that delusion? I haven't listened to the interview in full yet, but here's the link for everyone else and I will listen. Is it a path for desistance? More than 250,000 children were waiting at one point. "If we can get services right", but what does that look like? There seemed a pitch for young professionals to staff CAMHS. There doesn't seem discussion of tapering off and stopping blockers and fem/masc hormones or when. We still seem to be at the theory stage and 'waiting for clinical trial results'. Treatments for depression and anxiety are mentioned. Those aren't 'gender dysphoria' so were they all pushed under that label for convenience? For propaganda? Cass also mentions lack of cooperation from clinicians (adult clinics and no follow-up data) but they have now "expressed a willingness to cooperate". WTAF?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023q2z
The promotion of subjective experience over empirical evidence and objective reality, the acceptance of physical harm as a valid treatment for psychological distress - Cass doesn’t address either of these. Perhaps because they are ideological positions protected by law, perhaps because she has friends or relatives with children who want to lie about their sex..? Who knows. She really needed to address just two questions. Have children been harmed? Who is responsible? I had no idea that the number of children seeking ‘services’ was as high as 250,000 but you are right in pointing out that the personnel operating the new services will, as likely as not, be activists. I increasingly think that only litigation starting in the US by those profoundly harmed ( particularly as children) by this utter madness, will end it. We can’t look to our child safeguarding institutions to do that job - today’s Charity Commission report proves it. The Cass Review proves it. I really want to be wrong.
Quite right. have said it before: when EVERYBODY is being sued, it might make people stop and think.
Litigation is going to be central I agree. I think the following is my list:
1. More and more people need to speak out.
2. The MSM need to cover it - the BBC should be in the dock.
3. More legal cases.
Dusty
The BBC have still failed to cover the WPATH Files!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i complained Dusty, first reply….. we can’t cover everything , 2nd reply…. we can’t cover everything and not many other people did either.
My faith in the bbc was really plummeted. I still listen a lot to radio 4 because i’m, well i think a bit lonely in the day and i like a lot of the programs like more or less. Anti social is good too. Woman’s hour can be good but its often a bit too heavy and frankly i’m finding the global doom a bit much.
Exactly… WTAF? I keep thinking that this elephant is so damn big it could seem from space & yet our own supposedly ‘trusted’ national broadcaster is silent. Do you think any of them mention it in their programme meetings? Do they all look shifty & say “No, we can’t go there” & discuss why - or does everyone in the room ignore it, never mention it & just pretend it doesn’t exist.
It still makes me almost palpitate with indignation, anger frustration, anger… Why aren’t we all outside the BBC offices in Regent Street screaming about this? That might get it on the news.. if no one’s going to organise this, then maybe I will. Who’s up for a pre-Christmas mass-demo?
That is a great summation of Cass, Ian, thanks.
It also occurs to me recently that we can get blinded a bit by 388 page reports and the like - I pause and think: what is the purpose of puberty blockers? You cannot 'transition'. You cannot change sex. End of discussion. If you are really distressed by your circumstances then let's get you some therapeutic help. I'm anorexic. OK starve yourself, that's a good idea!!
This gender drivel is all an incredible fiction manufactured by , quite frankly, evil people.
Dusty
I really hope I am wrong about Cass but the Woman’s Hour interview is profoundly disturbing . Stay strong.
I agree. Thanks, Ian
Dusty
Have cross posted - including quoting you, Ian 😄https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/brooklyn
Dusty
Is there any way you can find out (ie: FOI application) who the main donors to Mermaids are? I’m particularly interested in the largest ones, including bequests in wills.
FOI doesnt cover charities. But it does cover the NHS and Government. You can ask how much money comes from the public purse then look at their published accounts and find out how much comes from donations. They dont have to list donors individually, but most charities will thank big donors in their annual accounts which need to made available to the public if they ask. Mermaids possibly don't thank big donors publicly as they may not want to be that transparent.
FOI applies to public bodies so I'm not sure if it applies to charities or 'charity' in the case of Mermaids. There's also the data protection regulations to consider as private information would be being requested. It would be interesting to see who is happy to contribute to this vile organisation.
I think there's been something up here before on where these shady charities got their funding. It was in their accounts.
Wow this a significant ruling. But I don't have faith that this and other charities will be held to account. I mean surely if legally, any claims made need to be balanced and evidence-based for educational purposes and be based on the Cass review then surely most "trans" charities will have blank website. I'm not being flippant but by the standard demanded from this inquiry surely no trans charity can continue to function?
It seems the inquiry found what couldn’t be denied - the puberty blockers and the binders. The rest of the horrors perpetrated by this organisation were so well reported - if not documented - beforehand that those under investigation would’ve known what the inquiry was looking for. They had time to make sure their stories matched and then go into full denial mode. I have no idea if that is what actually happened but it seems consistent with an ideology that insists on “no debate”.
At the risk of over-commenting, I am posting here my response to Michael Bailey's article in Reality's Last Stand, the substack of evolutionary biologist, Colin Wright. Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would be Queen, about crossdressing, is challenging therapist Joe Burgo's claims that AGP stems from experiences of shame about homosexuality. Classic "I have a PhD and you don't," a pissing contest in the sexology world that we've all seen before. I worked it all in, apologize for the length, but detransition, iatrogenic harm and the abuse of trans widows is all there.
Ute Heggen Response to Michail Bailey Suggesting AGP Research Using Reddit-type Platforms
I write this to ask if Prof. Bailey is aware that Sam Kaye detransitioned, and is no longer Maya? This "son of transitioner" was used long ago by you and Blanchard and Cantor as a "case study" for the theorized "father to son" link. Sam, the son, had all the surgeries 25 years ago, now tells the world how much he regrets them on his YouTube channel, Call Me Sam. Bob Withers, a Jungian therapist in the UK, mentioned your citation of Maya (now back to Sam) Kaye in your research literature. The father-son dyads in this social contagion clearly do not represent a genetic or biological link, and the contagion in families now demonstrates just how this cult appeals and grooms towards dangerous medical treatments. The pornography link, unlike the father-son link, is clear in AGP behavior, based on the information from wives described below. The recent small but growing wave of deaths from sepsis and kidney failure attest to the iatrogenic harm of treatments the Blanchard Protocol culminated in, now completely collapsed to months or even weeks from the original 2 years. (Griffin Sivret, natal female, 24--sepsis Liam Johns, natal female, 35--kidney failure Yarden Seveira, natal male, 24, sepsis/suicide Surgeries at lauded institutions, Boston Children's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan) Liver cancer is cited also recently in a Mayo Clinic study.
As the ex wife of an AGP who says he's "true trans" and also says he's me, the mother of our 2 grown sons, I'd like you, Michael Bailey, together with Cantor, Blanchard and Zucker to put out a statement that you now have some idea of the trauma caused by these men to the women they married and the children they fathered, by behavior actually sanctioned by therapists. You've never commissioned an independent parallel study of us, despite Ray Blanchard's famous quote, "Oh, the women don't like it." These men do not self-report their domestic violence, coercive control and sexual demands in their therapy sessions with your colleagues in the field.
I collect the only data in the world on trans widows, and my results include 64 of us. A steady third were sexually assaulted by lingerie-wearing husband. These men often had serious alcohol abuse issues. Also a steady third of us were physically assaulted, as in strangulation, shoving into a wall, being pushed down the stairs, held in a vise-like hold until involuntary urination occurred. In the case of the 5 rapes, 3 repeated rapes, by AGP husband, none were prosecuted, though 1 brutal rape was reported to the Met Police in London and DNA evidence and witness statements were collected.
We typically cannot use our given names when we tell of our experiences, as husband still threatens defamation, violence in some cases, and cancellation by his friends and allies frequently follows. The new documentary on us: Behind the Looking Glass at Lime Soda Films by cancelled auteur, Vaishnavi Sundar.
You need to watch it, Michael Bailey. The above rates of violence, ritual manipulation and coercive control are evident in the testimonies of the 18 of us in Behind the Looking Glass. In my data are many women who stayed for 2 or 5 or 10 years, and they covered up the violence they experienced while staying, often not speaking of it until years after getting out.