19th July 2030

Well, what did you think was going to happen?

As the dust settles, we can reflect upon how much of what we have gone through the last eighteen months was foreseeable, was any of it avoidable, and what now for Blighty?

Of course, the Patriots were always going to defeat their better funded crypto-communist Globalist opponents, that much was predictable, so why did the Globalists prod the bear until they got this?

Who knows, but they certainly picked the wrong fight. Some might say that as a rerun of the Brexiteer versus Remoaner wars of words, the well-funded, ‘educated’ Globalist caucus had a score to settle, and that while they lost the popular vote, they never lost their pompous assertions of superiority. Proof if ever that education does not equal intelligence.

One only has to look at the stereotypical Leave voter of 2016 and compare to the soy drinking, lanyard-class Europhiles to know which side would win if it all turned into a bar room brawl. And so it came to pass.

Maybe the Globalist ‘uniparty’ were not expecting it. Maybe they thought they could keep squeezing the middle until there were only two classes, and they had the cars and we had to use the bus. We cannot say with any certainty what was the exact trigger. The shift from discontent through increasingly brave acts to outright bloody violence was as gradual as the thirty-year build-up since Blair came to power.

Speaking of Blair, the international outcry over the manner of his demise shows a complete lack of understanding of just about everything, although, granted, there are those in the Mercian Brigade deserving of a reprimand, he was neither a combatant nor active protagonist, merely an emblem. Just as the French Revolution is remembered with images of the guillotine, so we shall in future centuries know the symbolism of the woodchipper.

It took a while for the Police to reorganise once the rank-and-file started to rebel. Those Patriot Chief Constables who let it be known they would take transfers inward from other forces showed great bravery and sense. Curious that their offer to facilitate outward transfers was, to the best of our knowledge, never taken up. Makes one proud to be British.

As for the armed forces, well, we should look at them in turn. The Navy remained inscrutable throughout, although insiders say their loyalty to the Patriot cause was never in doubt. All the same, there was not much call for them given this was a fight within the borders. By the time those in Whitehall decided it was time to use air power against its own people, there was enough momentum against them for the information to leak enabling swift preventative action. A very impressive coup by our D-Gangs operating as one. Let’s face it, the RAF was the biggest risk both in terms of loyalties and potential for mass casualties. As for the Army, well given all the Generals seemed behoven to the Globalists, it was always going to be a messy affair. The junior ranks though, well-done them. A bit of a surprise that it started with the Welsh Fusiliers, but no complaints. It is pretty clear that the turning point came when the Paras joined the Essex Brigade.

For me, one of the biggest surprises was what happened in Liverpool and Manchester. For every turn that was foreseeable, having the Scousers turn up like that was not in any reputable analysis. Clearly the stereotypes that have led to a hundred years of mickey-taking were as unjustified as the associated perpetual state of grievance seemed to imply. Hats are being eaten.

There is of course, the elephant in the room. Those who dream of, and advocate for, a United States of Britannia will have to wait a while yet. Those jokes about it being a good deal to lose Scotland to gain Ireland will have to get old first. There is hope, though, the federal model of Principalities is getting serious consideration North of the border, and those Nationalists who did not side with the Globalists might yet get the win-win we all know is within Scotland’s grasp. It is the way of things that when peace arrives, neither the borders nor the politics are exactly where one would expect them to be. Most wars end prematurely in some form or other, and this was no exception.

This is no time for recriminations, although nobody is expecting anyone who ever did a ‘Common Purpose’ course to ever get employment above the menial. Instead, this is a time to commiserate with the defeated, and if they accept your offer of beer and bacon butty (or cider and pasty if you are Wessex Brigade), embrace them. It is time to rebuild, safe in the knowledge that truly liberal democracy has been re-established - oh, the just irony that those who called themselves Liberal Democrats were on the defeated side!

The stark observation that, in the UK, “the Rule of Law is broken” is not hyperbole. Increasingly, we are witnessing a breakdown of trust in the legal and judicial systems. It is not simply that laws exist and are not enforced. The deeper problem is that justice is not seen to be done—and in many cases, is objectively not done at all. When citizens perceive that the law no longer functions as a shield for the innocent and a sword against the guilty, a primal and dangerous alternative begins to surface: the instinct to take the law into one’s own hands.

Let’s look at the evidence. Alleging that the rule of law is indeed broken is as serious as it gets, and so, the proof has to be conclusive. I first consciously encountered a hole in the rule of law when I, along with other parents from Our Duty, went to the Tavistock to hold its executive to account. We told them they were hurting our children, we asked them to stop, they denied it, we asked them to investigate. We returned, three months later in December 2019 to follow-up, again just a denial. At this point, the urge to administer justice was overwhelming; however, the rule of law would work for us, wouldn’t it? No chance. The former chief executive, Paul Jenkins, he who claimed to know nothing of the maiming and sterilising of our children, could have stopped it. He chose not to, he remains unpunished for that crime. Today, he is swanning around, living off the fat of a hefty and over-generous NHS pension, instead of languishing in jail where he belongs. Others guilty of harming our children include James Barrett and Leighton Seal and James Bellringer, Helen Webberly and Susie Green, all similarly in need of justice that seems not to be forthcoming.

This is a breach of contract: the unwritten, social covenant in which we citizens delegate the administration of justice to the state in return for not administering it ourselves. What then, are we expected to do now the state has declined to fulfil its half of the bargain?

But the gender scandal is just my pet peeve, there are other realms where the state is in dereliction of its duty.

We could look at other examples where justice is not done or is not seen to be done, such as the sexual abuse of countless teenage girls in those towns overrun by culturally incompatible immigrants. From Rotherham to Ballymena, the law is not keeping our children safe from rapists.

If the law will not protect our children from these abusers, then at some point, parents will realise that they are obliged to step in and fill the void left by the ineffectual, broken state apparatus.

We have probably needed a child-protection militia for decades, it might be a wonder to some as to why one has not emerged. The truth is that the law-abiding citizen believes in the Rule of Law, such a militia might well bypass it. But that belief, that article of faith is being tested as never before. Who is safeguarding our children if the state has abrogated its responsibility and parents are denied the authority?

Respect is earned, and that holds true for the Rule of Law. Respect can be lost in an instant, too. Lady Justice’s fall from grace seems to have become just another emblem of the decline of the West.

The Implied Contract: Law in Exchange for Restraint

Society rests on a foundational compromise: we renounce personal retribution on the understanding that the state will act in our stead. We do not take up arms against thieves, murderers, or fraudsters because the police will apprehend them, and the courts will deliver judgment. This is the moral glue that prevents lynch mobs and keeps vigilantes in fiction.

That moral glue has been dissolved.

This unwritten contract has been broken by those charged with its maintenance. The growing chasm between legal principle and lived reality is breeding a dangerous cynicism. When victims are ignored, when criminals go unpunished—or worse, protected—and when legal institutions become politically selective, the Rule of Law ceases to function as a universal principle and becomes a privilege of the powerful.

Take the case of Lucy Connolly - a mother imprisoned for expressing her opinion.

One need not look far to find examples of two-tier policing and two-tier justice in UK (a simple Google search for those terms will provide much material). We see justice being administered to uphold political ideology instead of natural law. Thus when it is administered, it is not done so fairly, and when it is not administered, that too is unjust. Consider the numerous high-profile cases in which justice has not only been delayed but ultimately denied. Consider the repeated failures of police to act on clear threats to children, women, or vulnerable groups—whether in grooming gangs, medical scandals, or elsewhere. Consider how courts are increasingly unable—or unwilling—to enforce the law without regard to identity, ideology, or influence.

Do you remember reading about sentences commuted because the perpetrator is transgender, or when he did not understand that raping little girls was illegal?

Lady Justice is portrayed as blindfolded, carrying scales in one hand and a sword in the other. In today’s Britain she sees “identity”, the scales are unbalanced by political interference, and the sword is wielded capriciously.

The Rule of Law has become unruly.

What Comes After Trust Is Gone?

The danger here is not merely the decay into uselessness of the institutions of justice, the great peril is societal collapse. When the Rule of Law is no longer credible, people will not tolerate these injustices indefinitely. Human beings are moral creatures, and when formal systems fail them, informal ones take their place. This is how vendettas begin. This is how mobs form. This is how the social contract disintegrates.

To acknowledge this is not to advocate for it—it is a warning. A society in which citizens feel they must take justice into their own hands is a society on the verge of anarchy. And yet, that is precisely where we are headed if this trajectory is not arrested.

“If I knew that I could get away with it, I would administer justice.” is a sentiment that I have heard many times talking with parents whose children have been abused by the state. The only fix to this mindset is to administer justice on their behalf, for the urges they are suppressing are as righteous as it gets.

The principle is simple, even primal: if the law will not protect the innocent, the innocent will be forced to protect themselves. And if justice cannot be obtained through due process, it will be sought outside it.

The Remedy: Repair or Ruin

This is a crisis of legitimacy. Fixing it requires more than funding or managerial tweaks. It requires a moral recommitment to impartial justice. It means removing ideology from police procedures, rooting political bias out of prosecutorial decisions, and returning the judiciary to its role as servant—not sculptor—of the law.

If this cannot be done, we must accept the consequence: a permanent erosion of civil peace, the rise of parallel systems of power, and the reversion to the ancient, brutal rule of might. Indeed, it might well be necessary to pass through a phase of populist law to demonstrate the need to refresh the covenant of state law. There has been a Cold War waged against the innocent and the righteous, it might well have to turn hot to stimulate a renewal.

The philosopher John Locke, writing in the aftermath of England’s civil unrest, put it plainly: when law ceases to be the common rule of right and wrong, “force becomes the umpire.” And when force is the arbiter, the future is not merely uncertain—it is ugly, chaotic, and irreversible.

The choice is clear and stark. Either we re-establish the Rule of Law so that it truly serves the common man, or we resign ourselves to a world in which he will no longer abide by it. This is not a threat; it is a diagnosis. And time is running out for a cure.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

The founders of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) understand this truth, and it drives their mission to create a better story around which Western civilization can be revitalised.

I have just returned from their conference at London’s Excel Centre and need to process my thoughts. So, here is the first in a series of articles. In each one, I shall offer a solution to a problem identified at the conference.

A Question of Faith and Modernity

Michael Shellenberger’s talk about AI contained a slide that resonated deeply with me. It made me think of Fuller’s insight and how, thirty years ago, I—a committed atheist—chose to be married in a church without compromising my principles.

G.K. Chesterton was right when he observed that people will believe anything when they stop believing in God. But if the traditional religions of old are at odds with modern sensibilities, how do we discard the scummy bathwater while preserving the baby? How do we keep God so as to avert the moral decline highlighted by Shellenberger?

Some assume that belief in God requires slavish adherence to one or other of the published religious doctrines. This is not true. The moral crisis stemming from the decline of religion is real, but it does not have to be. It is possible to embrace the ethical and communal benefits of religious belief while maintaining a commitment to reason and science. If the God of Judaism was version 1.0, and the Christian adaptation version 1.5 (now with added Jesus), then our contemporary understanding of the world demands God 2.0—an update that honours ancient wisdom while aligning with modern knowledge.

Encountering Faith Without Losing Atheism

On the first evening of the conference, I found myself in a Chinese restaurant, surrounded by a group of warm and welcoming Christians. Before the meal, grace was said. My only discomfort was in being caught off guard—such rituals are uncommon in secular Britain. But this moment reminded me of my own reconciliation of faith and rationalism.

I was raised an atheist. My parents instilled in me a strong moral compass, rooted in the cultural Christianity that defined England in my youth. As a child, I recoiled at certain aspects of organised religion—the supernatural, the authoritarian structure, the legal requirement for daily religious education in schools. And the hypocrisy of some Christians I encountered fuelled my distrust. I was bullied at school, and the bullies were, ironically, the same ones sitting in chapel.

As a consequence I developed a prejudice beyond mere scepticism that was only resolved when I was engaged to be married. Well, almost resolved, I still have a visceral aversion to men in frocks.

At school, we were taught the Ten Commandments. The second of which is:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” (Exodus 20:4-5)

And yet every church you could visit had people bowing down to crosses or statuettes of Jesus or Mary or both.

It’s a good job Michelangelo was a sinner.

To my teenage mind, Christianity was a system that permitted, maybe even encouraged, flouting the commandments with the promise of divine forgiveness.

A Wedding Dilemma: Can an Atheist Marry in Church?

When I met the woman who would become my wife, I realised that marriage is not just a contract but a covenant—a solemn commitment requiring deep understanding, conviction, and sacrifice. The UK civil ceremony lacked the gravitas I needed to make such a commitment. If we were to marry, it had to be in a church.

But how could I do this without becoming the hypocrite I had spent years despising?

Fortunately, 1993 provided an answer. That year, Anthony Freeman, an Anglican priest, published God in Us: The Case for Christian Humanism, arguing that God is not an external being but a human construct—a metaphor for the highest ideals of humanity. Armed with this perspective, we approached our local vicar, Stephen Terry of St. Philip’s in Hove, and explained our position. To our relief, he embraced our honesty, and together, we crafted a service that respected both tradition and belief.

For this to work, I needed to construct a meaningful concept of God—one that I could genuinely swear upon when taking my vows. So, I embarked on a mission to define what ‘God’ meant to me.

Introducing God 2.0

After much reflection, I arrived at my own holy trinity: Luck, Nature, and the Collective Wisdom of Mankind.

• Luck: Life is inherently unfair. Some are born into privilege, others into hardship. Circumstances can change in an instant—be it a stroke of misfortune or a lucky break. While we cannot control luck, we can influence it by working hard, taking calculated risks, and forging connections.

• Nature: The universe operates by its own laws, indifferent to human desires. From the principles of physics to the processes of evolution, nature sustains us, and understanding its workings is essential for progress.

• The Collective Wisdom of Mankind: Humanity has spent millennia accumulating knowledge, building civilizations, and developing ethical frameworks. The ARC conference itself highlighted this, with its exhibition featuring The Syntopicon—a compendium of 102 ‘Great Ideas’ drawn from history’s greatest minds.

This trinity became my version of the divine. So, when I prayed for my mother’s cancer to be cured, I was appealing to all three elements: luck, in the hands of fate; nature, in the resilience of her body; and human wisdom, in the skill of her doctors.

When we give thanks to God for our dinner, we are thankful for the luck involved in a bountiful harvest provided by nature and the accumulated wisdom of the farmers, food logisticians, and chefs.

A Model for the Future

At ARC, Shellenberger pointed out various societal ills that Chesterton had presaged with his diagnosis of the problem: the erosion of shared values has left Western civilization unmoored. But Jung, Fuller, Aristotle, and—if I may be so bold—I offer a solution: God 2.0.

This new framework retains the communal and moral strengths of traditional faith but updates it to align with modern understanding. It respects the narratives that have shaped our cultures while ensuring that belief remains compatible with reason.

And crucially, God 2.0 is backwards-compatible. It works within the structures and rituals already in place, bridging the gap between faith and scepticism, tradition and progress. And just like any good software, God 2.0 is open-source. Feel free to download, modify, and share responsibly.

When I started out on Twitter (now X) way back in its infancy, I quickly adopted two accounts, one in my real name @KeithHJordan and one anonymous @Sensatus. I built quite a following, particularly around the time of the Libyan uprising. Fast-forward to the gender wars and these accounts did not last long, both succumbing to the blue-haired moderators at Twitter HQ who seemed to have a pathological dislike of the truth. My third account, then, was required and fishing around for a name I landed upon @Buttinghill. This account commenced in June 2018 at the time when I was in the midst of establishing parent peer support for families with child thinking of themselves as transgender. The disruption, then, was not insignificant. Annoyingly, this new account only lasted until April 1st 2019 when some fool saw fit to ban it.

Buttinghill is the old name for the part of the country where I live. Technically, it is a hundred which is a subdivision of a rape. The meaning of the word rape in this context is akin to a county, each had a sheriff in what was once the Kingdom of Sussex.

There are a few ideas around for how Buttinghill got its name, but I prefer the simplest explanation: If you follow the line of the South Downs, there is a hill that butts out from the main escarpment, now called Wolstonbury Hill, and it forms the Southern limit of Buttinghill. At the end of the First World War, the Armistice documents were prepared at a house called Danny, an Elizabethan pile less than a mile North of Wolstonbury Hill. British Prime Minister Lloyd George lived in Danny, in a menage a trois with his wife and mistress, and would frequently walk to the summit of Wolstonbury Hill where he would survey Buttinghill.

Once Elon Musk took over Twitter and rebranded it X, it made sense to see if I could get my Buttinghill account reinstated. After a few months of trying, I succeeded. But then I had an anonymous account that I had no immediate use for.

Mr Musk sees Substack as direct competition, so links to it are downgraded. However, those Substack sites which have their own name, so look a lot like independent websites, don’t seem to get treated so badly. This prompted me to think about what website name I could get to take advantage of this, buttinghill.com was the obvious choice. So here we are.

But what is it for?

Well, for a start, I could make it look more like a magazine, if I have guest authors they’ll not be posting under my name, and it is more likely to push me to make something of it.

Buttinghill is currently divided into three sections, and you can subscribe (or unsubscribe) to them separately. The three sections are:

Manifest, Oh!

Where common sense and blue-sky thinking collide in the world of policy formation. Ideas that could end up in the manifesto of a truly wonderful political party.

Duty Calls

Articles concerning the prevention and cure of transgender ideation. Typically, interesting pieces that would not work on the Our Duty website but that need some outlet.

Occasional Musings

The original style of article, mainly contributions to the fight for truth, goodness, beauty, liberty and justice. The aim is to provide food for thought.

Other sections will be added in due course, maybe even recipes!

Anyway, I hope you like these developments. When posts become more frequent it shall be easier to discern what sort of article you’re getting.

If you are a paid subscriber, let me know what you think in the comments.

So what are the culture wars? Who are the belligerents? Who are the commanders and leaders? What exactly is being fought over? How did the wars start? And, crucially, how will they end? In short, what would the Wikipedia page on “The Culture Wars” say were Wikipedia itself not entirely captured (as indeed it is) by an army in this very conflict?

The original culture war was Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Mao aimed to remove the "Four Olds": old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas. He believed that these elements were preventing China from achieving true socialism and needed to be eradicated to build a new communist culture. This was no mere battle of ideas, millions died.

By 1991 the culture wars had flared up in the United States and was written about in James Davison’s "Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America". Davison portrayed the wars as Progressivism versus Orthodoxy, but makes the classic American mistake of attributing liberalism to the left. Now, of course, liberalism does exist on the left, the late Tony Benn was a great example. And I think we can all accept that a little socialism - the safety net - is a good thing. So when we see the culture wars being waged by the left, it is specifically the authoritarian tendency that is in the van.

Simon Heffer wrote in The Telegraph:
“The great lie about the culture wars is that the Right started them. It didn’t. It lacked the requisite intolerance to do so [my bold]. The cult of virtue-signalling, whereby earnest liberals curry favour with their co-religionists by seeking people and things to denounce, is rooted in Orwellian bullying by the Left.”

And while Heffer makes the same mistake as Davison in his use of the word liberal, he is right, the 21st century culture wars are waged by the far-left. As with all newspeak the term ‘culture wars’ is constructed to frame things in a manner that benefits the Left, usually by attempting to portray themselves in a good light, or those that oppose them in a bad one. The leftist meaning of the word “progressive” is a case in point and a particular bête noire.

Many of the core tenets of classical liberalism—such as individual liberty, free markets, and limited government—came to be associated with what we now call conservatism. The left’s hijacking of the word liberal for their own cause is perhaps an even more egregious example of newspeak than ‘progressive’. The preference for state intervention, regulation, ‘hate speech laws’, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, and so forth, are all antithetical to true liberalism.

Liberals want a small state and for it to be a referee and not a player. The Left want the state to be large and controlling, and for corporations to adhere to their orthodoxy - this, by the way, is the very definition of fascism.

So, in this Orwellian world, we might call the aggressor in the Culture Wars “The Party”, by which I mean all the sympathisers of woke causes rather than paid-up members of any of the leftist political parties, although there is considerable overlap. Members recognise each other by their declared adherence to articles of faith such as the use of pronouns. The list of beliefs will be familiar to many, as well as the belief that “trans people” are a distinct category worthy of recognition and protection in law, we have the notion of “white privilege” with its particular brand of racism re-branded as anti-racism (newspeak, again). Then there is “queer theory” which seeks to rid the world of the old taboos around sex, especially paedophilia. These behaviours have come to be known as ‘virtue signalling’, but yet again we see an example of newspeak. These are not virtues in any sense of the word that are being signalled, this is allegiance signalling. They clamour for equity unaware that their leaders only want it for the masses so they might be controllable. They want you to give up your car and take the bus, but don’t think for a second that they would.

Nandy declares the wars over, then encourages men to compete in women’s sports. Phillipson declares the wars over, then stymies free speech. What should we make of this?

It would seem that Nandy and Phillipson want the culture wars to end by way of an outright victory for the invading army of the authoritarian left. That, simply, is not going to happen. Far too many people realise what is at stake, here. If “The Party” wins we shall be living in tyranny. The party elites will be doing fine, the champagne socialists will survive and thrive, but the rest of us plebs will not be able to get well-paying jobs, and we shall not be able to complain, and we shall see our children’s futures ruined by indoctrination, immigration, and iatrogenic harm. Somehow, I don’t think the ordinary Brit will stand for it. But then, the people have not woken up to these threats yet, and maybe they’ll just lie back and take it. With over 50% of the British population reliant on the state, maybe there are already too many people scared of losing their jobs for standing up for themselves. If you are in “The Party” you can get a very lucrative gig being a “Diversity and Inclusion Officer” for one of the countless branches of the ever expanding state machine. If you are not, then it is cancellation for you. Your CV sifted out by woke AI, or by entrance tests with the wrong right answers. This has been happening for years, and the last administration did nothing to stop it. Their only attempt at pushback was the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, and that lies dead in the water.

If we can extend the “wars” metaphor to one most of us know about (although I suspect they don’t teach about in school anymore, after all the bad guys were authoritarian socialists then, too), then those people who know that what is happening is wrong, but have yet to speak up out of fear, can be likened to the refugees from Dunkirk. The recent General Election left many bloodied and no longer in the theatre they need to be in. Nevertheless, there remain operatives behind enemy lines. About a year ago, I could probably name every single one, they were so few in number, and their commitment so enduring. However, in the last 12 months, we have seen quite an explosion in numbers, I can no longer keep up. This is a good thing.

So, we shall call these defenders “The Resistance”.

Baroness Clare Fox, founder of the Academy of Ideas, commented on Phillipson’s betrayal writing in The Telegraph:

”In an interview on Monday, Bridget Phillipson declared “the culture wars on university campuses end here”. Now on Friday, she has declared war on the culture of free speech on campus. Let me assure her, as a parliamentarian and the Director of the Academy of Ideas, surrender is not on the cards. The fight-back starts here.”

The culture wars could end, or they could continue for another 60 years. If they are to end, it shall not be via the victory of the authoritarian; the human spirit will not allow it. Victory, then, will occur when the liberal values, established via the collective wisdom of all humanity over millennia, are once again revered. Those new-fangled ideas that have been wrecking the education of our youth since the 1960’s will die as bacteria under sunlight. The first step, then, is to remove the shadows of oppression from education and academia. Free speech has to become the norm in Universities. Its protection is necessary. From that all else will follow.

Phillipson has enjoined a war that she cannot win, although she might keep it going for another five years. The cost will be measured in another generation unsure of themselves, their place in the world, their value, their sex, and oppressed by the racism of anti-racism. A generation reliant on, and subservient to “The Party”.

This is no time for an armistice.

D-Day is some way off. Those of us prepared to fight for enlightenment values, for freedom, for democracy, need to regroup and plot our conquest of Berlin. Except, for this metaphorical Berlin, we must get there long before Stalin’s lot.

.

The phrase "zero tolerance" gained popularity during the New York Police reforms of the 1990s, inspired by the "broken window theory." This theory posits that visible signs of disorder, like broken windows, lead to higher crime rates. Implementing zero tolerance for broken windows made neighbourhoods appear more orderly and safe, instilling pride and reducing crime. Thus, intolerance can have its place.

The Connection Between Identity and Influence

Just as broken windows correlate with higher crime rates, there is a direct link between individuals identifying as transgender and children adopting this identity. This social contagion aspect is based on testimonies from hundreds of parents who describe the psychological and physical harm their children have experienced.

The Limits of Tolerance

Some advocate for tolerance towards those who identify with a 'gender identity' different from their sex. One such example is the “Acceptance without exception” campaign run by Stonewall. However, I argue for intolerance toward such identities.

As a liberal person, I have historically embraced a 'live and let live' philosophy and despised authoritarianism. During the 'New Atheist' movement of the early 2000s, I criticised religion for its dishonesty and authoritarianism. While my views on religion have softened, I still oppose its coercive aspects. For example, I am against obliging women to wear religious coverings.

Intolerance and Extremism

Islamism's intolerance has corrupted many countries, the Muslim Brotherhood has ruined Egypt, the Revolutionary Guard has oppressed Iran, the Taliban has done the same in Afghanistan. 

Nassim Taleb, in his book ‘Skin in the Game’, describes how an intransigent group will influence the behaviour of a flexible group. The relevant chapter is published on his Medium page ‘Incerto’.

The Virtue of Intolerance

"The minority rule will show us how all it takes is a small number of intolerant virtuous people with skin in the game, in the form of courage, for society to function properly."

Women, in particular, have led the charge against gender ideology, protecting spaces reserved for females. It is hard to imagine any other group having more skin in the game than parents of children who think they are transgender. Taleb points to courage as a means of becoming similarly invested. Such courage is very well exemplified by Graham Linehan. 

The Importance of Truth

Truth is paramount. "Legal fiction" is just a euphemism for lies. Gender identity ideology is built on lies, and the quickest way to protect adolescents and women is to expose these falsehoods. Honesty is a virtue, and we must be intolerant of lies.

Aristotle believed virtue stems from reason, while Kant argued that morality relies on truth. 

Reasoning is simply the deduction of new truth from existing truth. Failures in policy formation always stem from an absence of sound, complete reasoning. Hence, it is immoral to defend unsound policy.

Legal and Societal Reforms

Our children are being harmed. The Cass Review may have slowed this process but it hasn't stopped it. The societal norms that led us into this mess, driven by the #BeKind brigade, need to be challenged. The gender identity movement succeeded through vicious intolerance while pretending virtuous tolerance, and we must learn from this. Social flourishing occurs when there is one set of norms for everyone. Such norms must be based on sound reasons, not airy-fairy beliefs. The Gender Recognition Act is perhaps the greatest example of tribal beliefs overriding reasoned logic in British legislative history. Hansard exists as testament to that claim. Its repeal cannot come soon enough.

Legal Missteps and Remedies

The protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ must be removed from the Equality Act 2010.

The legal protection for gender reassignment began with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case P vs. S and Cornwall County Council (1996), which amended the Sex Discrimination Act. This decision was a mistake, as it conflated transsexualism with sex.

Discrimination can be valid if it achieves a legitimate aim. We must question whether 'gender reassignment' deserves protection as a characteristic. We could argue that hair colour or musical taste deserve more protection.

A potential solution is to replace protected characteristics with the concept of 'unmerited discrimination,' ensuring protections for the disabled and oppressed minorities without explicitly recognising gender in law.

Upholding Truth and Integrity

Our entire legal system needs improvement. Better laws, better interpretation, and less discrimination are essential. Advocates for change must demonstrate clarity, logic, and a virtuous intolerance of harmful policies.

We cannot accept the status quo. Laws must change, and compromise is unacceptable. How many regretted mastectomies are tolerable?

Freedom from harm and lies is a fundamental human right. Our position is one of liberty, not religious orthodoxy.

Conclusion

It is virtuous to be intolerant of lies and harm. Therefore, we must be intolerant of laws, actions, and behaviours that facilitate them. Be virtuously intolerant.

So said the Japanese General Miura Gorō of his decision to assassinate Queen Min of Korea.

The Japanese had sought to influence Korean affairs with varying degrees of success for centuries prior to the events of 8th October 1895.

In the months leading up to the assassination, Japan fought China for control over Korea in the first Sino-Japanese War.

Japan's interest in Korea was strategic. The Korean Peninsula served as a buffer zone between Japan and its main rival, China. Moreover, Korea's geographic proximity to Japan made it a crucial link in Japan's expansionist ambitions in East Asia. As Japan modernised and industrialised in the late 19th century, it sought to assert its dominance over Korea to secure its own geopolitical interests.

Japan had already won Korea from China, it did not need to assert its control in the manner Miura Gorō chose.

Queen Min's resistance to Japanese encroachment stemmed from her commitment to preserving Korean sovereignty and independence. She recognised the threat posed by Japan's expansionist ambitions and sought to counterbalance Japanese influence by fostering closer ties with Russia.

In the late 19th century, East Asia was a main area of focus for a great many countries seeking to expand their spheres of influence. Japan, with its modernised military and aggressive foreign policy, and Russia seeking to establish a foothold in East Asia with Korea as an ideal location for warm water ports. The English, French and Germans were all active in the region, too.

Queen Min's efforts to align Korea with Russia and resist Japanese influence incurred the wrath of the more hawkish Japanese officials who saw her as an obstacle to their expansionist agenda.

In 1895, a group of Japanese assassins, acting on orders from General Miura Gorō, infiltrated the royal palace and brutally murdered Queen Min.

With her death, Japan effectively gained control over Korea's foreign policy and internal affairs with the Treaty of Shimonoseki paving the way for its eventual annexation of the peninsula in 1910. The remnants of the Korean royal court sought refuge in the Russian legation. The Korean people’s sympathies were with the royal family, Russia’s influence grew significantly. As a political assassination, that of Queen Min backfired greatly, with the people granting her the status of "Empress Myeongseong" posthumously.

Japan’s enmity with Russia which had commenced with the Tsushima incident of 1861 had just escalated a significant notch.

Manchuria was another region in which Japan and Russia were competing for dominance, although the Germans were really upsetting the natives. Killing those who protested the building of a railway was never going to win hearts and minds. The Boxer Rebellion in 1900 in which a Chinese tribe versed in martial arts (hence the ‘boxer’ epithet) sought to expel foreign powers carving up the region, raised the temperature further.

By 1905 Japan and Russia were involved in a full-blown war, a war in which Russia was soundly defeated.

The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 was expensive for Russia in money, in lives, and politically, in that it weakened the Tsar’s legitimacy as absolute monarch. The war, coupled with the socioeconomic hardships endured by the Russian populace, created fertile ground for political dissent. It was amidst this backdrop of disillusionment and unrest that Marxism gained traction as a revolutionary ideology promising liberation from oppression and exploitation.

The writings of Marx had attracted the attention of scholars and dissidents, however for it to succeed as an ideology beyond academia and trade unionism it needed a country-sized petri dish.

World War I, further destabilised Russia and precipitated the collapse of the Romanov dynasty. The February Revolution of 1917 ushered in a period of political upheaval, culminating in the Bolshevik seizure of power in October of the same year. Led by Vladimir Lenin and inspired by Marxist principles, the Bolsheviks established the world's first socialist state, fundamentally altering the course of history.

Despite the socialist experiment in Russia being an abject failure by any measure, its one success (if it can be called that) was outside its borders. The ideology behind socialism was exported worldwide. Idealists lapped it up. Even the Communists called these credulous souls “useful idiots”.

The Soviet Union, under Lenin's successor Joseph Stalin, sought to export communist ideology and extend its influence beyond its borders. The KGB, the Soviet Union's notorious intelligence agency, played a pivotal role in this endeavour, employing covert tactics to promote communist revolutionaries and undermine capitalist regimes around the world.

The testimony of Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB agent turned defector, offers insights into the clandestine efforts of the Soviet Union to advance Marxist-Leninist ideology globally. Bezmenov's accounts reveal the extent to which the KGB manipulated political movements, fomented unrest, and disseminated propaganda to further Soviet interests.

The Eastern Bloc political alliance controlled by the Soviet Union might have been broken up at the conclusion of the Cold War in 1989, but it cannot be said that the war was ‘won’ by the west. Russia might have moved from soviet socialism to authoritarian dictatorship, but just about every Western country is now paralysed by excessive socialism.

The key word here is ‘excessive’. Few would be so cold as to deny the basic principle of “to each according to their need”, however the concept of ‘need’ seems to have expanded gradually up Maslow’s pyramid such that the wants of party members exceed the capacity of society to pay for them. No longer do we restrict the role of the state to supplying the basics of food, education and security to those who cannot provide for themselves. Now the state has to control your self-actualisation.

That which was cultivated in a petri dish in Russia has escaped the laboratory and become a global pandemic.

Would Tsar Nicholas have succeeded in turning Russia into a constitutional monarchy along the lines of that of the United Kingdom had he not had his political capital wrenched from him by the Japanese?

Would Japan’s enmity with Russia have been lessened or been resolvable had General Miura Gorō taken a few more puffs on his cigarette, and concluded that a bloody despatch of Korea’s Queen was not such a great idea?

Who knows?

But when people ask me how we got here, I tell them: “Japanese General Miura Gorō took three puffs on his cigarette”. It’s as good a story as any.

In this epidemic of children thinking of themselves as transgender their disease does not ever arise because they are transgender. Transgenderism is merely an idea in a person’s head.

Such an idea ought to be dismissed immediately it coalesces. However, there is a bewildering array of reasons why young people will, instead, ruminate on the idea and give it credence that it does not deserve.

There are individuals who suggest to others that they “might be trans” and for them Hanlon’s Razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

There are other individuals who, in adopting a transgender persona, make that suggestion not in words but merely in their being present. Now, any liberal-minded person would wish for individuals to be free to express themselves in any way that they see fit – on the proviso that it does not harm others. And it is this condition that is the reason why transgenderism is something that should only be practised behind closed doors.

It is the very idea that somebody can be transgender that is harmful. The mere suggestion of this idea to a susceptible person is on a par with throwing a rock at them.

When that rock hits, only the resilient are unaffected. We can build resilience by equipping young people with the fortitude to resist patently ridiculous and harmful ideas. In the case of transgenderism then we have a duty to make that idea one that everybody agrees is patently ridiculous and harmful.

Unfortunately, the current climate is such that not only is transgenderism considered valid, practitioners are lauded and given elevated status. In this mad world where we must artificially divide people into oppressor and oppressed classes and then oppress the oppressor and equip the oppressed to become the oppressors (yup, bonkers, isn’t it, everyone gets oppressed in the end) the black transwoman is king.

Health services tout ‘gender affirming care’ as if opposite sex imitation medicine is a panacea for all adolescent angst. Governments pass bills to recognise ‘gender’ and contrive to give those in denial of their sex especial privileges. The ridiculousness of the whole vacuous farrago is summed up in the activist mantra “Trans Rights are Human Rights” – the very epitome of speaking without saying anything.

The idea that a person can be transgender, beyond merely as a social or medical malpractice classification, is one that lacks any evidential support. It is just a daft idea.

And yet that daft idea is being taught in schools as if it were fact. How are children meant to resist such an unevidenced and harmful idea when it has been given the gloss of academic authority?

If you give a daft idea official validity then it is harder to dismiss. Young people with anxiety or depression, or a tendency to take things too literally, or a desire to escape their current persona, might ruminate on that idea as they explore possible solutions to their perceived problems.

When this happens, what we can call transgender ideation becomes a real and dangerous problem.

Activists will have you believe that if a child thinks that they are transgender then they probably are. These activists have formed into affinity groups labelling themselves as LGBTQ+ Support Organisations and they infiltrate schools to promote their queer theory and gender identity ideology. Their motives? To validate their own delusions and to recruit more acolytes to prop up their perverse worldview are two of the more innocent possible explanations.

Activist teachers exist and welcome these grooming groups into their schools. What is their motivation? Tribalism could explain it. They want to virtue signal their woke credentials to their equally credulous peers.

And then there are teachers with a transgender persona. Some teachers who imitate the opposite sex might be fully aware of the problems around youth transgender ideation, they might not care which pronouns their students use for them, they might use the correct bathroom for their sex; no matter how honourable and principled they might be, they have no place in a school setting. Their being present is enough to give validity to the idea that being transgender is not ridiculous and harmful. School teachers are role models, schools must ensure that the teachers they employ are people that students can admire and seek to emulate. A transgender teacher does not fit the bill.

Once a child has accepted the idea that they might be transgender, there is a short window of opportunity, before they have ruminated on that idea too long, in which they can be helped to reject the idea. However, if rumination persists, and especially if it is reinforced by official recognition – for example by social affirmation or a transgender teacher – then desistance from transgender ideation becomes harder to achieve. If a young person fails to desist in their ideation before they are convinced they need medical intervention to imitate the opposite sex, then real harm will be done.

Schools should be places where students are safe. Therefore, schools should be places where the idea of transgenderism is given no quarter. Schools need to be “Trans Free Zones”.

In the United Kingdom, under the Equality Act 2010, it is permissible to discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristic when such discrimination is “a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim”.

‘Gender reassignment’ is one such protected characteristic (although I do not think it should be).

When the legitimate aim is the protection and preservation of the health, wellbeing, even lives, of children and adolescents, then I would argue pretty much any means can be considered proportionate. It could also be argued that if this point of view were both widely accepted and widely upheld then we would probably not be in this mess right now.

The idea of a transgender role model needs to disappear. Only the Zeitgeist will do this in online media, but in the real world we can start with our schools.

While I am unaware of any child having died as a consequence of foamed concrete falling on them, the government has acted swiftly in fear this might happen. Schools have been closed and a programme of remediation is underway.

I am aware of children who have died as a result of gender identity ideology falling on their heads.

A young person has a 19 times greater chance of committing suicide if they are allowed to develop their transgender ideation socially and medically. And yet, the government has been aware of this problem for years. In stark contrast to its RAAC intervention, it has dithered, dallied, and delayed any meaningful response.

In the four years since the Government realised that something needed to be done, and so set the ball rolling on the Cass Review, there has been very little progress in providing protection for children.

The case of Keira Bell’s judicial review into prescription of puberty blockers at The Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service served to inject some caution into the mix where prohibition would have been far more appropriate. And let’s pause for a second to contemplate how we ended up with a division in the NHS called a Gender Identity Development Service. A gender identity is as spurious as one’s character in Dungeons & Dragons, and just as fantastical. Moreover, why would one need developing, we all know that a gender identity is the last thing any person would wish for.

Dr Hilary Cass published an Interim Report that barely went further in advancing adolescent safeguarding. It might have put a quasi-official stamp on the caution around puberty blockers, and the fact (trite to any half-decent child-development professional) that social affirmation is ‘not a neutral act’ – could the language used be any less neutral?

This April, Cass gave another signal as to the direction her review seems to be heading. In an article published in the Royal College of Psychiatry’s magazine Insight, she made a number of concerning statements. While her considerable experience in paediatric medicine commands great respect, one cannot help but wonder if her judgement is beginning to fail. For instance, she states that “Some may go on to develop a stable trans identity and may benefit from medical intervention”. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether a patient presenting for gender medicalisation will or will not have a ‘stable trans identity’. Moreover, the well-known negative effects of the treatment could never be described as a benefit. We know that medicalisation can afford a temporary amelioration of feelings of gender dysphoria, a phenomenon known as gender euphoria, but it is transitory. The only incontrovertible benefit will arise from having no medical intervention, especially because we know dysphoria resolves in time. It is also becoming very clear that real gender dysphoria (if there is such a thing) is vanishingly rare. Most adolescents acquire dysphoric feelings through excess rumination, or in a great many cases just fake it (and this has been known for over four years, too, and was reported in the Irish Independent). To be fair, Cass does acknowledge “the lack of a consistent view about the nature of gender dysphoria”.

In another concerning phrase, Cass states “There will not be black and white answers” and it is this mindset that has clearly plagued and crippled her review. Of course, there will be black and white answers. Members of the Cass review team need to recognise this. Is sex binary and immutable, or is it not? Is opposite-sex imitation ever ethical? Are the long-term downside risks proportionate to the short-term manifestations of distress? Some of these are difficult, however concrete answers are required. I have been studying the evidence and working with families embroiled in this particular arena for longer than Cass – and I can say unequivocally that there are some black and white answers. One of these is that children would be at far reduced risk of transgender ideation if the pathway went nowhere, a dead end, with a bloody great concrete wall at the end of it.

Cass also says: “We are seeing a generational shift in attitudes to the meaning and mutability of gender”. Well, that may be so, but that does not mean that gender (as distinct from sex) is something that requires medical intervention. Also, I would caution against putting too much store in the generational shift. There is a component of the promotion of gender ideology that is part of the far-left’s Long March Through the Institutions which will prove hard to shift in the current political climate. There is also a component which is clearly a social trend. Twenty years ago, the sight of young men displaying a Calvin Klein waistband and three-quarters of their arse above gravity-defying (or not in some amusing cases) jeans was commonplace. Now, this fashion has gone the same way as flares. In twenty years time, there will be fewer teens identifying as trans. Transgender ideation is a cultural phenomenon, one that requires profound cultural change to eliminate, that, too, is a black and white answer.

The Interim Report from the Cass Review has already informed an Interim Service Specification for Children and Young People with Gender Dysphoria (it is preferable to call the condition Transgender Ideation because dysphoria might not have developed, or it might be falsified). This new specification is to NHS Service Specifications what RAAC is to school ceilings. Its failings will become apparent in due course. The specification was consulted upon. There was a report carried out into the consultation by TONIC which highlighted the clear lack of consensus. There were two clear respondent groups which the TONIC report called Group A and Group B. Group A were all in favour of the maiming and sterilising of our youth, they were mainly the current patients and the ‘woke’ half of contributors. Group B consisted of concerned parents and those with an evidence-based outlook. With no consensus, the NHS had to pick a side, they went with the ideologues. The sceptics were ignored, completely. 

Twas ever thus.

Four years ago, I attended the Governor’s meeting at The Tavistock and told them they were harming our children. Hannah Barnes, author of the medical expose Time to Think was with me that day, alongside other parents in the support group I founded, and another journalist. The story was reported in The Sunday Times under the headline “Parents battle ‘state‑sponsored sterilisation’ of trans children.” You can be sure that if, four years ago, chunks of concrete were regularly maiming children in schools, the government would have acted, just as they have done now on a precautionary basis, to shut down the schools. So why did they not shut down the gender clinics?

This precautionary principle applies to children’s safety in schools, why not elsewhere, especially when the harm is real and demonstrable? There is no doubt that as soon as the government got wind of the unevidenced, unsafe, quack medicine practised in the name of gender ideology it should have imposed a moratorium on it. The apologists will say “Oh, they’ll just go elsewhere” and that is true.

On average, a girl has her breasts unnecessarily amputated every single day on the NHS. And then there are the private patients, and then there is the phenomenon of girls getting mastectomies by Mustafa in Marmara – yes, Turkish tit-removal tourism exists to fulfil the sad, misplaced desires of those who raised funds via GoFundMe to bypass the NHS waiting lists. 

It is clear then, that we must prevent children getting the dumb idea that they can have a gender identity in the first place. And rid them of the notion it needs ‘developing’.

Any cursory examination of causes of transgender ideation in adolescents would have highlighted the role played by schools, be it via bullying, dodgy RSE materials, or activist teachers. Our kids are set on the pathway to lifelong misery, likely infertility, and probable premature death, in schools. And that is why concrete steps must be taken to reverse this dereliction.

The crucial fact is this: the Government knew of the harms created by gender medicine four years ago and chose to do nothing. The Cass Review is now looking increasingly like being a sop, the political long-grass. The fudge it claimed to aspire to was never achievable, there was never a consensus to be arrived at. Given the choice between giving the patients what they need and giving the patients what they want, I fear Cass will recommend the latter. 

And what the patients want is for crumbling concrete to crush their crania.

What the rest of us need is concrete action. The evidence base for opposite-sex imitation is full of holes, and it is crumbling. It is unsafe. Close the gender clinics down. Kick gender identity ideology out of schools. 

I asked Chat GPT to write me an article on the harms of chest binding:

I knew that I would have to edit it to remove ‘woke’ language such as “assigned female at birth”, but there was an even bigger surprise in store.

The references to academic articles from scholarly journals were made up.

Fabricated.

This, to me, is amazing, and dangerous. People will be producing work using tools such as Chat GPT. Work that cannot be considered reliable or trustworthy in any meaningful way.

And when I say “made up”, I mean just that. Chat GPT seems to take components of academic citations and then jumble them up, to be picked out - the wrong notes, in the right order. Clever, just like the Morecambe and Wise sketch that brought “the right notes but in the wrong order” into our language.

In the spirit of providing docume

ntary evidence of this defaming of Chat GPT - here it all is:

Here is the original article as written by Chat GPT:

Introduction

Chest binding is a practice commonly undertaken by transmasculine individuals assigned female at birth. Chest binding involves the use of compression garments or materials to flatten the chest and create a more masculine-looking chest. While chest binding may provide a sense of gender affirmation for transmasculine individuals, it can also have negative physical and mental health consequences. This article will explore the harms of chest binding, drawing on academic journals and including relevant citations.

Physical Health Consequences

Chest binding can lead to several physical health consequences, including pain, shortness of breath, and skin irritation. A study conducted by Littman et al. (2019) found that 97% of transmasculine individuals who bind their chests experienced at least one negative physical health consequence, with 76% experiencing multiple consequences. These consequences included back pain, shoulder pain, breathing difficulties, chest pain, and skin irritation.

Another study conducted by White et al. (2020) found that chest binding can also lead to changes in lung function, particularly if the binder is worn for an extended period. The study found that participants who wore binders for more than eight hours a day had reduced lung function compared to those who did not wear binders.

Mental Health Consequences

In addition to physical health consequences, chest binding can also have negative mental health consequences. A study conducted by Kosenko et al. (2015) found that chest binding was associated with increased anxiety and depression in transmasculine individuals. The study found that those who bound their chests frequently reported more symptoms of anxiety and depression compared to those who bound their chests less frequently.

Another study conducted by Testa et al. (2017) found that chest binding was associated with body dissatisfaction in transmasculine individuals. The study found that those who bound their chests frequently had higher levels of body dissatisfaction compared to those who did not bind their chests.

Conclusion

Chest binding can have negative physical and mental health consequences for transmasculine individuals assigned female at birth. Physical health consequences include pain, shortness of breath, and skin irritation, while mental health consequences include increased anxiety, depression, and body dissatisfaction. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware of these potential consequences and to provide support and resources to transmasculine individuals who choose to bind their chests. Additionally, more research is needed to better understand the long-term effects of chest binding and to develop safer binding methods.

References:

Kosenko, K. A., Rosenberger, J. G., & Novak, L. A. (2015). Health and social service needs of transgender people in Chicago. International Journal of Transgenderism, 16(2), 84-94.

Littman, L. L., Koscinski, D., Oveson, J., & Van Der Cook, J. (2019). Health impact of chest binding among transgender adults: a community-engaged, cross-sectional study. LGBT Health, 6(8), 338-343.

Testa, R. J., Rider, G. N., Haug, N. A., & Balsam, K. F. (2017). Gender confirming medical interventions and eating disorder symptoms among transgender individuals. Health Psychology, 36(10), 927-936.

White, H., Carroll, A., & Grossman, A. H. (2020). Respiratory health and chest binding experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming adults. LGBT Health, 7(8), 417-424.

So let’s go and double-check the references we have been given…

First:

Kosenko, K. A., Rosenberger, J. G., & Novak, L. A. (2015). Health and social service needs of transgender people in Chicago. International Journal of Transgenderism, 16(2), 84-94.

The correct citation for the article with that title is:

Gretchen P. Kenagy PhD & Wendy B. Bostwick MPH (2005) Health and Social Service Needs of Transgender People in Chicago, International Journal of Transgenderism, 8:2-3, 57-66, DOI: 10.1300/J485v08n02_06

Second:

Littman, L. L., Koscinski, D., Oveson, J., & Van Der Cook, J. (2019). Health impact of chest binding among transgender adults: a community-engaged, cross-sectional study. LGBT Health, 6(8), 338-343.

Does not exist, this is the correct reference for an article with the same title:

Peitzmeier S, Gardner I, Weinand J, Corbet A, Acevedo K. Health impact of chest binding among transgender adults: a community-engaged, cross-sectional study. Cult Health Sex. 2017 Jan;19(1):64-75. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2016.1191675. Epub 2016 Jun 14. PMID: 27300085.

Next we have:

Testa, R. J., Rider, G. N., Haug, N. A., & Balsam, K. F. (2017). Gender confirming medical interventions and eating disorder symptoms among transgender individuals. Health Psychology, 36(10), 927-936.

Which is, perhaps surprisingly, now, correctly cited.

However, to round off our selection:

White, H., Carroll, A., & Grossman, A. H. (2020). Respiratory health and chest binding experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming adults. LGBT Health, 7(8), 417-424.

Just does not exist. There is no article by that name. White, Carroll and Grossman wrote a paper in 2015 on abortion: White, K., Carroll, E., & Grossman, D. (2015). Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: A systematic review of the literature. Contraception, 92, 422-438. But that’s it.

So, what is the article on page 417 of issue 8, volume 7 of LGBT Health?

Well, here is a screenshot of the contents of that particular journal:

There is an article on Family Relationships spanning pages 407-419 and another on Illicit Drug Use on pages 420-430

In conclusion:

Chat GPT just makes stuff up - but it does so in such a way that would be unnoticeable to anyone not versed in the subject matter.

To my mind, this has to be by design - but to what end?

This ‘feature’ renders such articles untrustworthy. In matters such as the subject of this article, when the health and wellbeing of vulnerable young pople is at stake, this behaviour of Chat GPT is nothing short of dangerous.

User beware.

Pronouns are words that we can use instead of somebody’s name when we are talking about them.

In the English language there are masculine, feminine, neuter, and plural pronouns.

Masculine pronouns (he/him/his) are used for boys and men, and feminine pronouns (she/her/hers) are used for girls and women. Neuter pronouns (it/its) are used when the subject does not have a sex (like a table) or when the sex is unknown (like for a rat). One exception to this rule is for people, it is considered dehumanising to use ‘it’ for a person of indeterminate sex, so plural pronouns (they/them) are used as a courtesy until their sex is known.

Why do people put their pronouns in their e-mail signatures?

If someone puts their pronouns in their e-mail signature, it means that they adhere to the quasi-religion of gender ideology. This set of ideas is harmful to children, families, and society. The people who put pronouns in their e-mail signatures who are unaware of these harms are likely just gullible and mean well. Those who are aware of these harms are authoritarian, narcissistic evangelists for gender ideology.

The excuse is often made that putting pronouns in email signatures might be done by those with indeterminate sex to avert potentially embarrassing moments, and for others to show solidarity with such people. However, it is often done to encourage people to treat a male person as if he was female, or vice versa. This is gaslighting and dishonest, and, if there is a hint of coercion (watch out corporate HR departments), an infringement on the observers’ human rights to free expression and freedom of belief. These are fundamental freedoms which cannot be sacrificed to avoid hurting the feelings of those of indeterminate sex or deluded narcissists. There is no human right to be spoken about by others in a certain way, nor should there be.

Should I put my pronouns in my e-mail signature?

No.

Although, if you are desperate to be seen as a trendy, virtue-signalling, imbecile, then go right ahead…

Your freedom to express yourself is there to be enjoyed!

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is ‘captured’ by the ‘critical social justice‘ movement.

What does this mean? Why should you be concerned?

When we talk of an institution being captured, we mean that the decisions made to determine policy and practice are all made through an ideological lens. While we would like to think that public servants operate with due impartiality, treating every citizen equally and implementing government policy to the best of their ability, there are public servants who actively reject their duties in this regard. Activist teachers are a known problem in the education sector. We have known for years that activists have led The Tavistock GIDS clinic into being the operational delivery branch of the gender ideology movement. One might be forgiven for thinking that this aberration was an isolated case, one specifically targeted by the validation junkies promoting gender ideology. However, gender ideology is just one facet of a broader ideological invasion of the public sphere. The other major facet is Critical Race Theory – this is the ideology that aims to spread racial division by elevating non-white races above the white in an unneeded pop chart of perceived victimisation.

Both gender ideology and critical race theory are components of ‘critical social justice’. This movement has existed in one form or another in academia for decades, and is a product of University Social Sciences departments and the ‘long march through the institutions’ which has been seeking to embed far-left ways of thinking into society. Historically, the centre of political thought has largely ignored this phenomenon – “lefty students soon grow up when they get to the world of work”, right? In recent years, though, the ideas taught by those promoting ‘critical social justice’ and its antecedents have not been left behind on the University campuses. They have found their way into society at large, manifested by firms promoting ‘pronouns in bios’ and courts acquitting vandals of criminal damage on ideological grounds.

Even the BBC with its well-touted remit to be impartial has not escaped: How the BBC was captured by trans ideology

This is how we know that these destructive ideologies are not confined to the Tavistock Centre. The NHS runs training courses pushing these belief systems out across the whole organisation.

This is manifest in the NHS proposed Interim Service Specification for the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Children and Young People. Even after the Tavistock scandal was brought to light, the revised specification still uses the language of gender ideology.

Society at large, and the NHS, must rid itself of the harmful and divisive ‘critical social justice’ movement. Sadly, this is a deep seated cultural malaise that shall take decades to fix. A new enlightenment is required, one in which objectivity and facts must take precedence over subjectivity and feelings. A new ‘long march through the institutions’ is needed, and it cannot start soon enough given that ‘critical social justice’ is being taught in primary schools today along with its core tenet of creating the activists of the future.

If we do not set about this task in earnest, and with total commitment, right now, then one day you might be denied medical treatment because of your politics or because of the colour of your skin.

That is the world that is being built for you.

There is, therefore, without doubt a clear demand for help and support for families with a gender incongruent child, one which is not being met by the Government. Instead, the government is seeking to enact legislation in the proposed bill to ban conversion therapy that could stop families receiving this sort of help.

When a child tells their parent that they are transgender, the parent has two main options.

The first is to take the child’s declaration at face value, to follow Government advice (promoted via the NHS and the Department of Education), to enlist the support of gender affirming lobbyists such as Mermaids, GIRES, Allsorts Youth etc. and convert their child from a healthy young person into an imitation of the opposite sex, reliant on medication for the rest of their life and victim of unnecessary surgery to sexual organs. Their child could become infertile.

Why is this the Government’s position?

The second is to follow their gut instinct. Any rational loving parent would not wish to see such horrific harm befall their child. Parents will find out that sex is binary and immutable, that opposite sex imitation medicine is ill advised and harmful, that detransition is a real phenomenon and that regret is common. These parents discover that the organs of the state have been ‘captured’ to the extent that their concerns are dismissed as ‘transphobic bigotry’. The truth is that being transgender is, for the adolescent cohort, just a feeling, a deeply embedded belief. A social craze.

Parents seeking support do so to know that they are not alone, to know that despite the crazed utterances of the devout at the Despatch Box, men who claim to be women remain men – regardless of what procedures they have had inflicted upon them. We know our little girls remain our daughters, they grow into women with low voices, five-o-clock shadows and lost breasts; corrupted by the state.

Once, our children might have thought that they didn’t look right, not enough people told them they were fine as they were.

It is these practices that the government should be legislating to halt. Opposite Sex Imitation Medicine is a group of elective and cosmetic procedures which should only be undertaken by sufficiently mature adults who are of sound enough mind to give truly informed consent (is that even possible?) and can finance it themselves. There is absolutely no clinical justification for these procedures whatsoever.

If we could find a way, a magic bullet, a twelve-step programme, anything, to help our children reject their transgender ‘gender identities’ and reconnect with the reality of their sex, then we would employ it without hesitation. It defies all reason that any government would wish to hinder our mission, let alone seek to outlaw it.

We cannot have a law designed to stop parents doing the right thing by their child; and there is a genuine risk that any bill to ban conversion therapy would outlaw our parents and our work to support them.

Sadly, there is no known talking therapy proven to help someone reject a transgender identity. However, should such a therapy be discovered, I would wish to employ it and promote it, and teach it, and spread it so the whole world might benefit from an end to the misery of ROGD.

In reality, we have to play a waiting game, we wait for the penny to drop. This wait is not helped by the prevailing narrative in the NHS, in schools, in the media, being that transgenderism is somehow wholesome and normal and to be protected and celebrated.

It really is none of these things.

The proposal to include ‘gender identity’ in a bill to prohibit conversion therapy is as misguided an initiative as it is possible to imagine.

How did we get here?

We must first understand that there are different cohorts of people claiming an incongruent gender identity. We have pre-pubescent children, who are most likely victims of Munchausen’s by Proxy. Then we have the adolescent cohort – sufferers of so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria – this is the cohort which we are striving to protect. Then there are homosexual transsexuals, mainly gay men who enjoy female role play, and historically have never claimed to be the opposite sex. And then we have the autogynephiles. Men who choose an incongruent gender identity instead of a Harley Davidson in midlife crisis. These men have wealth and power. In addition, they claim to be the opposite sex. In making such an outrageous and easily dismissible claim, they then require ‘validation’. Another cohort consists of those who do not fit neatly into any of the previous categories, adults who have convinced themselves that they are transgender to alleviate inner turmoil; maybe homophobia, maybe, sadly, just being the wrong sex for the one they truly love.

Those who seek the approval of others that they are indeed the opposite sex and must be treated as such have made enormous inroads reshaping public policy. It was a massive political mistake to accede to their demands.

The idea that gender can be equivalent to, but opposite from, sex, should never have been entertained. And yet now, the momentum behind the gender ideology movement is such that it has the backing of the United Nations and Canada is the latest state to have passed a law which supports it. The impression we are left with is that nobody in power has had the time or inclination to take a long hard look at the facts.

Any embedding of gender ideology in any law anywhere gives credence to the idea that one can be medically transgender. Our children look at such laws as giving legitimacy to their incongruent gender identities. This veneer of respectability deprives our children of the truth that could help them reject their transgender ideation. The truth that they are not and can never become the opposite sex. The truth that employing the word gender to fudge the issue is a deliberate ploy by those desperate for validation. The mothers with Munchausens and the fathers with wigs.

Obviously, gender identity, cannot be included in any bill to ban conversion therapy. Nobody needs a gender identity and enshrining the notion in law would open the floodgates to even more unnecessary, egregious, and risible legislation.

In recognising that the word gender has already been used to obfuscate the reality of sex in law (see s.9 of the Gender Recognition Act), then a better use of parliamentary time would be to legislate against the word.

Gender need not appear anywhere in statute – it creates grey areas which will only be resolved by costly and lengthy litigation.

Government must legislate to expunge the word gender from all statute and bar its return.

This would result in repeal of the Gender Recognition Act, a dropping of ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (already being used as Self-ID by the back door), and a Conversion Therapy Bill which protects homosexuals but does not stop parents from being the best parents they can be.