Stonewall – the UK organisation which started out campaigning for LGB rights has been at the forefront of adding the T (for trans) to make their cause about LGBT.

So they’re the experts, right? Let’s see what they say:

Trans – An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Transpeople may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including but not limited to, transgender, transsexual, gender-queer, genderfluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, transfeminine, and neutrois.

The second half of this statement covers what transpeople might describe themselves as, so if we accept that people have the right to describe themselves as they see fit, we can leave that part as uncontentious.

So, now we are left with:

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

What do they mean by gender? Does everyone have a gender, or just some people?

Let’s check the dictionary:

Gender is a word used in the field of linguistics to describe pieces of grammar that are loosely associated with being masculine, feminine or neuter.

Great! That’s what we all knew, it meant.

Also, (colloquially), one’s sex.

We know that, too, right. Some people are a bit too prudish to use the word sex, so they use the word gender instead. But that is only a colloquialism, so it wouldn’t be used in any formal or academic writing.

And anyway, if it does mean sex, then Stonewall means:

An umbrella term to describe people whose sex is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Let’s try this one for size.

Is your sex ‘not the same as’ the sex you were assigned at birth?

Well if you are reading this, then you know your sex. You might well have even used it for recreation or procreation. Your sex is which one of two classes of human you belong to – the class that is equipped to produce the large gamete (egg) is female, and the class that is equipped to produce the small gamete (sperm) is male. In humans, sex is immutable – it cannot be changed.

So, now we need to know what sex you were ‘assigned’ at birth. We have conducted extensive research and have found absolutely nobody who was assigned a sex at birth. The general consensus is that sex is determined when the egg is fertilised by the sperm and identified sometime thereafter, with birth being the most common moment sex is observed. Moreover, if anybody was assigned a sex at birth that was different to their actual sex, then they could just reject any such assignment. Sex assigned at birth is not recorded anywhere, it is a made-up idea. It is your actual sex which is recorded on your birth certificate and passport (unless you get them changed, which, despite the immutability of sex, you can do in jurisdictions which have accepted the idea that gender is equivalent to sex on some, yet to be scientifically established, level).

From this analysis, it is possible to draw two hypothetical conclusions from Stonewall’s definition of trans.

a) Stonewall’s definition of trans is wrong

b) There are no transpeople

So which is it?

If Stonewall’s definition of trans is correct, then it literally denies the existence of transpeople. Note the use of the word literally here, it means ‘the exact interpretation of the words’ rather than the colloquial use as a mode of exaggeration.

Also, there are people who describe themselves as trans. So let’s accept that transpeople exist.

That leaves only one remaining conclusion. Stonewall’s definition of trans is wrong.

Maybe, they are not the experts in transpeople that they set themselves up to be.

Previously, we have accepted that people can describe themselves how they want, so why don’t we ask some transpeople what the word means to them?

Setting aside the first response ‘anyone who says they are’ – with the response that we are seeking a non-circular, unambiguous definition.

The first was a simple ‘transsexual’ – those answering in that manner had as little idea as to what transgender meant as the rest of the world. The Oxford English Dictionary defines transsexual as somebody who has the physical characteristics of one sex and the psychological characteristics of the other. Exploring the psychological characteristics of a sex sounds like it has all the potential of a long and tortuous journey through a deep and complex and dark rabbit hole. Let’s not go there. Instead we shall remind ourselves that those who write dictionaries are entomologists and lexicographers, and not psychologists; thankfully. We know the new breed of trans people do not generally refer to themselves as transsexual. What of them?

This is when we start going around in circles. A lot. Until one is thoroughly dizzy – and one suspects that could be the intention. Bamboozlement, discombobulation, and obfuscation do seem to come naturally to those promoting this new gender ideology.

The circle was always the same – the first half of this article – where we start with the Stonewall definition of trans and finish with Stonewall either erasing trans people or being wrong.

Except one. On one occasion, gender was not conflated with sex. It was said to mean ‘gender identity’.

We could, then propose a simpler, clearer definition:

people whose gender identity is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, their sex

The concept of gender identity has been heavily promoted by the United Nations. The UN is an organisation which is accepted by nations across the world as being the arbiter of what is good national practice.

There is a big debate to be had as to whether it still deserves this status, but it has a noble history especially in the production of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United Nations defines gender identity thus:

Gender identity is defined as a person's internal, deeply felt sense of being male or female or something other or in between. A person's gender identity may or may not correspond with their sex (HRC, 2008).

So, it is a feeling.

The United Nations and Stonewall and legions of other Alphabetti Spaghetti organisations are seeking to enshrine a feeling in every nation’s laws.

We are getting somewhere, though, we have now got a distilled definition of trans:

People who have an internal, deeply felt sense of being different from, or uncomfortable with, their sex.

It is impossible to change one’s sex. One can change one’s feelings. Cheer up!

Why are governments, at the behest of the United Nations, seeking to protect these feelings in law?

Why are organisations championing the largely irreversible medical alteration of secondary sex characteristics to align with something as vague and capricious as a feeling?

Why do people who have these feelings deserve extra protections in law?

I feel exasperated – where are the extra rights for the exasperated?

I first met Kathleen Stock in Brighton on 16th July 2018. In our brief encounter, I recall mentioning that simple predicate logic was all that was needed to get us out of the gender mess. Dr Stock probably thought I was hopelessly naïve, mansplaining, an idiot, or all three of the above. Now, I mention this meeting for two reasons, the first is that our heroic philosopher has (as I was in the midst of writing this article) just expressed some frustration with the process of the Supreme Court in its deliberations over the meaning of the word woman.

https://x.com/Docstockk/status/1861757995891224787

Yes, a flowchart would be helpful.

The second reason is that I, too, had become a little antsy with our learned Lords and Ladies holding sway over the highest court in the land. Specifically, the judges’ collective inability to apply basic rules of logic to the problem they were charged with resolving was, as when I first wrestled with it in 2018, turning me into a gibbering imbecile.

In the six years since I made the bold claim that all we needed was logic, I have learned a great deal. When I first resolved to join in with sorting out the gender mess, I assumed everyone could see what I could see - especially those on the side opposing self-identification of gender identities. This was hopelessly naïve. We all come to this with wildly different experiences, different educations, different ways of seeing the world. My background includes a first career as a software engineer. Back in the days when computer programs were often written at machine level, expected to be correct, and debugging was a very costly exercise, a great deal of importance was placed on logical correctness. Consequently, computer engineers of the 1980s were taught Boolean logic, mathematic (to manipulate binary arrays) and electronic (to understand chip design) as well as predicate logic (to write correct programs).

We were told philosophers learned logic, too. So of course, Professor Stock would know what I was wittering on about, right? Probably not. Logic is the study of correct reasoning, but it is a surprisingly broad field. There are formal and informal methods. Informal logic is associated with logical fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal, almost mathematical, language. Our shared understanding of logic was likely less than the shared medical understanding of a chiropodist and a dentist.

Anyway, back to the Supreme Court, where our judges seemed to be learning the hard way that they need a crash course in logic. Their often clumsy interjections had already reminded me of my wild claim that logic was the answer. In the six years since, computer science has advanced such that today’s artificial intelligence software, in the form of Large Language Models, can perform useful tasks that would hitherto have forced me to blow the dust off old textbooks and do some hardcore revision. And so I was minded to ask ChatGPT to perform the following:

The response is reproduced at the end of this article.

What drew me from turning my curiosity, and idle ChatGPT query, into this article was a combination of Kathleen Stock’s post on X - wasn’t that a coincidence? And prior musing on the nature of logic as used in these three differing professions.

While formal logic is the realm of the computer scientist, and philosophers might employ some predicate logic but are more likely to pursue the informal logical analysis, lawyers, if they use any logic at all, will almost always do so from the informal toolkit. One easy way to comprehend these differences is to consider the differences between Verbal Reasoning and Non-Verbal Reasoning you might have encountered in school (or in getting a child into a selective school).

Logic becomes a part of one. If obliged to use it regularly, it becomes internalised. After a while there is no need to show workings, you can just see the correct answer in the mind’s eye. This is a skill that is less prevalent now than it once was, we live in an era when feelings are considered to be at least as important as facts. Logic does not work on feelings, its raw materials are hard facts. Computer programming has been lifted far away from the machine. What of philosophy and law?

Of course, the law is as much about rhetoric and precedent as it is about demonstrable proofs. And it might be assumed by the profession that maybe the criminal law might benefit from more logic - “my client cannot be in two places at once, your honour” - than other branches. I would disagree.

The evidence from the last two days is that highly paid arbiters, presumed to be at the pinnacle of their realm, are struggling with both the black-and-white of formal logic and the inferences one can draw if versed in the informal variety.

In fact, there is often merit in performing a more formal logical analysis of what might be usually considered an informal exercise. One such technique is the “decision tree”. These are useful, and often called flowcharts, for determining what decisions are required and how to make them. This particular decision tree only partially addresses the specific question raised in court today in that it points to the women in question having access to the standard treatment under the Equality Act.

The judge asked “if a natal man has GRC as a woman who do not present as women then they may not be discriminated against if the employer is discriminating against women, does that affect the women being able to identify a comparator, then can they bring a discrimination claim?”. To which the barrister’s response was “can I look at that over lunch? I think I need a flowchart to work it out.” [ per ]

In that example, it would seem that there is positive discrimination in favour of the man because he is a man and thus the women are being discriminated against on the basis of sex. Nevertheless, the law would benefit from more flowcharts!

We might also surmise that had the government of 2004 applied a little logic when considering the Gender Recognition Bill, we might never have acquired such a poor Act.

Both formal and informal logic should be expected of senior lawyers and of legislators. Formal logic for abstraction, informal logic for rhetoric and real-world problem-solving.

Computer engineers and philosophers are quite correct in expecting more from those making and interpreting law.

The Fundamentals of Logic should be part of any course to qualify those aspiring to legislate or to judge.

ChatGPT Response to “use predicate logic to disprove gender identity ideology”

Here is the response to the challenge (a key to symbols used is provided at the end) :

Gender identity ideology asserts that an individual's subjective experience of gender is the definitive criterion for determining their "gender" or legal/biological sex. Using predicate logic, this ideology can be challenged by demonstrating internal contradictions or conflicts with established facts. Below is a structured disproof using predicate logic principles.

1. Core Proposition of Gender Identity Ideology

• Claim: Gender identity is self-defined and supersedes biological sex.

  • Symbolically: ∀x (GI(x) → SD(x)), where GI(x) represents the proposition "x's gender identity is valid," and SD(x) represents "x’s self-declaration is sufficient for determining gender."

2. The Principle of Non-Contradiction

• In classical logic, a proposition cannot simultaneously be true and false:

  • ¬(P ∧ ¬P).

• If gender identity ideology leads to contradictions when applied consistently, it cannot be a valid framework.

3. Disproof Through Contradiction

Argument 1: Biological Facts vs. Self-Declaration

• Biological Reality:

  • Biological sex is determined by observable traits such as chromosomes (XX, XY), reproductive anatomy, and gametes. Let B(x) = "x is biologically male or female."

  • B(x) is immutable: ∀x (B(x) → ¬C(x)), where C(x) represents "x can change biological sex."

• Gender Identity Ideology:

  • GI(x) asserts that self-declaration alone (SD(x)) determines gender, irrespective of biological sex. Thus: ∃x (SD(x) ∧ ¬B(x)).

• Contradiction:

  • If SD(x) determines gender, then B(x) is irrelevant. However, physical reality (chromosomes, reproductive functions) consistently asserts ¬C(x), contradicting GI(x).

Argument 2: Gender Identity Is Non-Falsifiable

• Falsifiability Requirement:

  • A valid scientific proposition must be testable and falsifiable: ∀P (¬T(P) → ¬V(P)), where T(P) represents "P is testable," and V(P) represents "P is valid."

• Self-Declaration as the Criterion:

  • GI(x) asserts ∀x (SD(x) → GI(x)). However, SD(x) is entirely subjective and lacks external validation, making it unfalsifiable.

• Result:

  • If gender identity cannot be falsified, it violates the basic principles of scientific and logical reasoning.

Argument 3: Logical Conflicts with Legal and Biological Frameworks

• Scenario: Legal and medical contexts rely on biological sex (B(x)) for safety, fairness, and functionality. For instance:

  • In sports: ∃x (GI(x) → Adv(x)), where Adv(x) represents "x gains an unfair advantage."

  • In prisons: ∃x (GI(x) ∧ Risk(x)), where Risk(x) represents "x poses a safety risk in sex-segregated spaces."

• Contradiction:

  • If GI(x) allows ∃x (SD(x) ∧ ¬B(x)), it undermines frameworks built on B(x), leading to conflicts in law, safety, and fairness.

4. Predicate Logic Summary

1. ∀x (B(x) → ¬C(x)): Biological sex cannot change.

2. GI(x) → SD(x): Gender identity ideology hinges on self-declaration.

3. ∃x (SD(x) ∧ ¬B(x)): Gender identity contradicts immutable biological sex.

4. ¬T(GI(x)) → ¬V(GI(x)): If gender identity is unfalsifiable, it lacks logical validity.

5. GI(x) ∧ Legal/Medical Frameworks: Leads to contradictions in fairness, safety, and policy.

5. Conclusion

Gender identity ideology relies on subjective, unfalsifiable claims that conflict with biological and logical frameworks. Using predicate logic, we see that this ideology violates the principle of non-contradiction, fails the test of scientific validity, and leads to inconsistencies in critical societal domains like law and medicine. Thus, it is logically untenable as a framework for determining sex or gender.

Symbols and Their Meanings

1. ∀ (Universal Quantifier)

   • Meaning: "For all" or "for every."

   • Usage: Indicates that the statement applies to all elements in a given domain.

     • Example: ∀x (B(x) → ¬C(x)) means "For every individual x, if x is biologically male or female, then x cannot change biological sex."

2. ∃ (Existential Quantifier)

   • Meaning: "There exists."

   • Usage: Indicates that the statement applies to at least one element in the domain.

     • Example: ∃x (SD(x) ∧ ¬B(x)) means "There exists at least one individual x whose self-declaration conflicts with their biological sex."

3. → (Logical Implication)

   • Meaning: "If...then..."

   • Usage: Represents a conditional relationship where if the first statement is true, the second must also be true.

     • Example: GI(x) → SD(x) means "If x has a valid gender identity, then it is based on self-declaration."

4. ¬ (Negation)

   • Meaning: "Not" or "It is not the case that."

   • Usage: Negates the truth of a statement.

     • Example: ¬(P ∧ ¬P) means "It is not the case that both P and not P are true."

5. ∧ (Logical Conjunction)

   • Meaning: "And."

   • Usage: Combines two statements such that both must be true for the conjunction to be true.

     • Example: SD(x) ∧ ¬B(x) means "Self-declaration of gender and the absence of alignment with biological sex."

6. ∨ (Logical Disjunction) (Not explicitly used in the original text but relevant for predicate logic)

   • Meaning: "Or."

   • Usage: Combines two statements such that at least one of them must be true.

     • Example: P ∨ Q means "Either P or Q is true, or both."

7. T(P) (Testability Predicate)

   • Meaning: Indicates that a proposition P is testable.

   • Usage: Used to evaluate whether a statement or theory can be empirically verified.

     • Example: ¬T(GI(x)) → ¬V(GI(x)) means "If gender identity is not testable, then it is not valid."

8. V(P) (Validity Predicate)

   • Meaning: Indicates that a proposition P is valid.

   • Usage: Used to assess the logical or empirical truth of a statement.

     • Example: ¬V(P) means "Proposition P is not valid."

Key to Variables

1. x: Represents an individual or subject within the domain (e.g., a person).

2. P: Represents a proposition or statement.

3. B(x): Indicates that x has a specific biological attribute (e.g., male or female).

4. SD(x): Indicates that x has made a self-declaration of gender identity.

5. GI(x): Represents that x’s gender identity is considered valid.

6. C(x): Indicates that x can change their biological sex.

The concept of a belief being “worthy of respect in a democratic society” is defined in English law in the context of employment discrimination and human rights under the Equality Act 2010. This legal principle arrived in the public consciousness with Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] the result of which brought us the hashtag #WORIADS - Worthy of Respect In A Democratic Society, and was primarily clarified in the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010]. So, let’s take a look at these cases and how to test whether a belief is worthy of respect:

In Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010], the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) established criteria for determining whether a belief qualifies for protection under the Equality Act 2010. The case involved an employee, Tim Nicholson, who claimed he had been discriminated against due to his philosophical belief in climate change.

In his judgment, Justice Burton described how Mr Nicholson’s conviction could be tested for it to qualify as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010, these five tests are now referred to as the Grainger criteria:

1. Belief must be genuinely held: It cannot be an opinion or viewpoint based on current information; it must be sincerely believed by the individual.

2. Belief must be a belief and not an opinion: It must relate to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, rather than simply an intellectual position or viewpoint.

3. Belief must be cogent, serious, and cohesive: The belief must be clear and have a certain level of importance and substance.

4. Belief must be compatible with human dignity: It must not conflict with the rights of others or be incompatible with fundamental human dignity.

5. Belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society": It should not be harmful or incompatible with the principles of democracy, tolerance, and respect for human rights.

In Forstater v CGD Europe [2021], the tribunal applied these criteria to Maya Forstater, a researcher who claimed her contract was not renewed because of her gender-critical beliefs—namely, that biological sex is immutable and should not be conflated with gender identity. The tribunal ruled that her belief met the Grainger criteria and was thus protected under the law.

In particular, it was ruled that while gender-critical beliefs might offend or upset others, they were worthy of respect in a democratic society, provided that the expression of these beliefs did not amount to harassment or discrimination against others.

Our thought experiment, then, is to attempt to turn the Forstater case on its head, and apply the Grainger test to the opposing belief, the conviction that some people can have a gender identity that is at once equivalent to yet different from one’s sex.

In the first test, the belief must be genuinely held. The nature of indoctrination that is prevalent in society is such that a great many people who do believe in genderwoo would seem to do so sincerely. A pass, then.

The second test is that a belief must be a belief and not an opinion. The difference between the two in this test is that a belief relates to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and an opinion is an intellectual position or viewpoint. Given that ‘gender reassignment’ is already recognised in English law (a grave error), it seems reasonable to grant gender identity ideology belief status on this test (no matter how undeserving).

Thirdly, a belief must be cogent, serious, and cohesive. Well, here is where we can have some fun! A certain level of importance is undisputed (it is one of the biggest issues of our time). As for substance, there is none. Gender identity ideology is almost entirely incoherent. If its proponents were serious, then they would engage in serious debate - their capacity for that seems to be undetectable (curious then, how some aspects became enshrined in law!). Genderwoo should not pass this test, but if MPs cannot think straight, the same can be said of some judges.

The fourth test is: Belief must be compatible with human dignity: It must not conflict with the rights of others or be incompatible with fundamental human dignity. A slam-dunk for Team Reality! Gender identity ideology is patently incompatible with human dignity, it conflicts with children’s right to grow up healthy in body and mind, it conflicts with women’s rights. A clear fail.

Finally: a belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society": It should not be harmful or incompatible with the principles of democracy, tolerance, and respect for human rights. Gender identity ideology is harmful. Gender identity ideology is intolerant. Gender identity ideology does not respect human rights.

Genderwoo almost certainly fails test number three, and clearly fails tests four and five.

Gender identity ideology is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

It is unworthy. #UORIADS

The belief in genderwoo is infringing women’s rights, it is harming children, it is corrupting our very sense of reality. Gender identity ideology does not meet the criteria to be a protected belief. There is a burning imperative for society to eliminate it entirely. We can start by not affording it any respect whatsoever, wherever you might encounter it. And if that means more court cases, then bring them on.

So-called ‘lived’ (is there any other kind) experience is subjective, making it less reliable than objective sources. In the realm of gender medicine this unreliability is compounded with powerful cognitive biases.

It is an objective truth that the normalisation of transgenderism is a contributory factor in the epidemic of adolescents adopting trans identities. This is because transgenderism is an ideation.

The essay Autogynephilia at 35 by Dr Anne Lawrence provides a retrospective examination of autogynephilia (AGP), a paraphilia characterised by male sexual arousal at the thought or image of oneself as a woman. While Lawrence's work aims to explore the personal experiences of those living with AGP, it largely frames the condition sympathetically, overlooking critical safeguarding concerns.

It was the line in that paper: “AGP will inevitably become part of the curriculum” that prompted me to write this article. AGP must never be taught in schools as if it is somehow equivalent in status to heterosexuality or homosexuality. That was not the only red flag in the paper. On examination, there are concerns that highlight the need for society to adopt a far more cautious approach to AGP as part of safeguarding vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, as well as protecting individuals from irreversible harm.

One of the primary safeguarding concerns with AGP is the potential for individuals manifesting this ideation to undermine established sex-based protections in public spaces, particularly in environments such as bathrooms, changing rooms, or women’s shelters. In Lawrence’s retrospective view, the focus remains largely on the individual’s experience of AGP without addressing the broader societal implications. Exactly the sort of perspective that hindered Cass. Safeguarding measures are primarily designed to protect vulnerable groups, such as women and children, by maintaining clear boundaries based on biological sex. Manifesting AGP in public, particularly through transitioning or accessing female-only spaces, threatens these boundaries by blurring the lines between real sex and its imitation.

Such blurred boundaries can create opportunities for exploitation or abuse. Safeguarding policies, especially in educational settings or places that involve intimate care, rely on biological distinctions to protect individuals from harm. Allowing individuals with AGP, a male paraphilia, into female spaces undermines these protections. The fact that AGP is tied to sexual arousal heightens the risk. Beyond these well-documented risks is the effect any acceptance of AGP in the public realm will have on children’s perception of reality. The push to destigmatise and affirm all forms of transgenderism, including those rooted in paraphilic ideation like AGP, risks exposing young people to confusing messages about sexuality. The risk is especially acute during the critical years of identity formation. Adolescents may internalise these messages and be led toward life-altering decisions based on what may only be transient feelings. Safeguarding children and adolescents requires promoting clear, stable sex-based distinctions rather than affirming paraphilic behaviours that could lead to psychological or physical harm. Lawrence’s paper takes no account of these safeguarding concerns, and so overlooks vital aspects of public safety and wellbeing.

The rising trend of medical interventions in youth struggling with transgender ideation—such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—can be exacerbated by the normalisation of paraphilias like AGP. If AGP, with its strong sexual component, is presented as a valid expression of identity, it could further complicate the treatment of transgender ideation in youth, encouraging them to pursue irreversible medical transitions based on ideations that might otherwise have been managed through psychological support.

The concept of autogynephilia as an ideation—persistent, ruminated thoughts or fantasies that can become compulsive—should be viewed similarly to other forms of cognitive distortions or paraphilic disorders. Ideations, when repeatedly ruminated upon, can become ingrained and potentially harmful if acted upon. Lawrence's work primarily focuses on affirming AGP as part of the individual’s identity, yet this perspective fails to recognise the potential dangers of reinforcing these ideations. When AGP is treated as an inherent part of one’s identity rather than a modifiable thought pattern, it opens the door for harmful behaviours to be legitimised and enacted publicly.

The Role of Taboo in Safeguarding

Society often uses taboo as a cultural safeguard, signalling that certain behaviours, while perhaps present, are best kept private and managed through therapeutic interventions rather than normalised in public. In the case of AGP, maintaining a taboo around its public manifestation serves an important safeguarding function. It protects both individuals experiencing AGP and society from the potential harms associated with acting out ideations that could be better addressed in private settings.

Lawrence’s retrospective analysis of AGP largely glosses over the importance of this taboo, treating AGP as a condition that should be publicly accepted and normalised. However, by removing the cultural safeguards that come with taboo, we risk encouraging behaviours that could lead to broader harm. Instead, AGP should be treated as a private issue—something to be managed therapeutically rather than displayed or affirmed in public spaces. This would not only help prevent individuals from making irreversible decisions, such as medical transitions, but also protect vulnerable groups from being exposed to potentially harmful behaviours rooted in paraphilic ideations.

Conclusion

Tellingly, Dr Anne Lawrence’s Autogynephilia at 35 includes the following sentence:

If adolescents with AGP and severe gender dysphoria can be identified in middle childhood they can be offered puberty blocking and feminizing hormones in their early teenage years, allowing them to develop the bodies they desire and to move through the world more comfortably as adults.

AGP in adolescents is, in my experience, vanishingly rare (possibly because one likely hypothesis is that AGP comes about after prolonged exposure to pornography). Adolescent transgender ideation (which can lead to feelings of gender dysphoria) is predominantly a social phenomenon, although there will be some exceedingly effeminate young homosexual men among their number. However, worse than treating gender dysphoria as the valid diagnosis that it is not, Lawrence’s advocacy for the medical ruination “to develop the bodies they desire” puts the wants of the deluded ahead their mental and physical wellbeing needs.

It is unfortunate that Autogynephilia at 35 has received the attention that it has, it deserved to be kept in private shame. Like those with autogynephilia.

By maintaining a cultural taboo around the public manifestation of AGP, society can protect vulnerable populations, such as women and children, and susceptible individuals from making irreversible decisions that may stem from compulsive thought patterns. Cognitive-behavioural approaches, rather than affirmation, provide a more responsible and effective framework for managing transgender ideations.

The well-being of all society requires safeguarding, and it requires taboos.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Cass Review could have gone further in its demolition of opposite-sex imitation medicine (I have written previously on this):

For a start, there is the clear ethical position “First Do No Harm” which seemed not to play as big a role in the four years of study as perhaps it might have. And then there is the precautionary principle – if we don’t know whether this patient will benefit why should we go ahead with a harmful procedure?

There is enough evidence, and also evidence of lack of evidence, to point to a complete moratorium on opposite sex imitation medicine being not only justified, but an urgent necessity.

So why was this defensible safeguarding position not taken? Why was this opportunity missed? Why will young people continue to be maimed and sterilised on the NHS without any clinical justification?

One thing that constrained the Cass Review was its terms of reference. It was not within the remit of the review for it to take a position on adult opposite-sex imitation. Indeed, there was a challenge to get the review to accommodate adolescents all the way up to age 25, and the report is to be commended for managing to address this cohort, something I advocated for. 17-25 year-olds are the largest group at risk of ideological iatrogenic harm from gender identity ideology. While the medical evidence is clear that the administration of wrong sex hormones is unconvincing (a NICE review classified the research that sustains this treatment it as low quality and low probability), the Cass Review was not tasked with taking a view outside its terms of reference, so Recommendation #8 reads:

“NHS England should review the policy on masculinising/feminising hormones. The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review would recommend extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18.”

Importantly, then, there is to be a review of wrong-sex hormones. The review could not take a position itself, so it delegated the task to a subsequent review. Let us all hope this gets underway with the sense of urgency that current damage being done demands. However, 16-18 year-olds were within the terms of reference, so we must ask why the Review recommends ‘extreme caution’ rather than a complete prohibition. Demanding a ‘clear clinical rationale’ should in any case (assuming an absence of ideology) result in no wrong-sex hormones being prescribed to this cohort. In which case, has the desired outcome been achieved by applying three Band-Aids (the review, the call for caution, the requirement for clinical rationale) instead of the bandage that would have been ideal? Well, maybe, but that metaphor has further value if one imagines the efficacy of such bodge jobs.

There are other recommendations where a mealy-mouthed paragraph stands in the stead of something clearer and unequivocal. There is a theme.

The Cass Review, then, seems to have been compiled as if it were a major trauma unit equipped only with sticking plasters. It is my view that this was deliberate, rather than necessary. And the reason?

Politics.

It was a stated objective of the Cass Review from the outset to seek consensus. However, anyone familiar with the concept of binary will soon realise that there is no consensus to be had. And that is why the review was a fudge in the Great British tradition of political fudges. This was a review straight out of the Theresa May playbook, something that tries to please everybody and succeeds in only pleasing the gullible and otherwise soft-headed. It was not entirely a project to kick the can down the road. Already, we have seen the Sandyford Clinic in Scotland halt prescription of puberty blockers. Yippee doo. There are less than 100 children on puberty blockers for reasons of gender (there should be zero of course), yet thousands of adolescents on wrong-sex hormones, both via the NHS and via private, cowboy outfits.

The review succeeded in setting in motion the inevitable end of opposite-sex imitation medicine. Yet it was not nearly as emphatic as those of us with skin in the game needed it to be. We needed action when the scandal emerged. Such opportunities came when Sue Evans blew the whistle, when Transgender Trend was established, when parents including those from Our Duty, tried to hold the Tavistock board to account. There really must be an inquiry into the failure of governance at the Tavistock. The children at risk needed decisive and urgent action as soon as the scandal was identified, they still do.

Whatever the Cass Review said, it was only to be expected that advocates of opposite-sex imitation medicine would object to it. It was inevitable that the report would bring the most rabid promoters of gender identity ideology and its associated medical interventions, out of their basements, frothing at the mouth all blue hair and spluttering nonsense from the same hymn sheet (“98% of studies were ignored!”). This was to be expected, regardless of how hard or soft the Review reported its findings. However, in pitching the report so as to minimise the total uproar volume, it failed (at least in the short term) the very children it was established to protect.

The report was sufficiently short-measured to attract the support of the Labour Party. This result, considering the Labour Party was hitherto an enthusiastic promoter of child abuse, might on its own be considered to justify the unnecessary loss of children’s futures that such equivocation has guaranteed. This is especially the case when it looks likely that Labour will form the next government. Would the Labour Party have embraced the review’s findings had those findings been more emphatic, had the language in the report been more objective? Perhaps not, and then we would have had to endure at least five years of enthusiastic butchery. In any war, and this is one, a general must weigh up the lives he is willing to sacrifice against the lives that might be saved.

We have no way of knowing whether there was political input into the review. Were there ‘Special Advisers’ signalling what Wes Streeting (Shadow Secretary of State for Health) would find acceptable or beyond the pale?

And then there was the half-hearted welcome from Stonewall. Was that a target for the Cass Review, or a pleasant surprise? Frankly, we should not care.

As I predicted at its establishment, the Cass Review was a sop, and it was the political long grass. However, is that because it had to be?

If it had been the best it could be from an objective perspective, would it then have failed to be well-received by those open to persuasion?

And while it was inadequate and incomplete from an evidence-based medicine perspective, and from a safeguarding perspective, it did contain some crucially important and very welcome positive developments. Possibly the most important of which is the review into adult services.

In the UK 70% of those in adult services are under 25. Moreover, the largest age group at referral is the 17 year-old passed up from child services. In another, very welcome move, there will be follow-on services for 17-25 year-olds currently in the child system. Whether these adolescent services will be available for new referrals 17-25 is not known, but they should be.

When you are haggling over the purchase of a car, and the deal is done, and everyone walks away with smiles on their faces. The seller might be thinking “could I have got more for it?”, the buyer might be thinking “could I have paid less?”. Such thoughts are, of course, moot once the deal is done, but they are, I am sure, commonplace. In the following weeks, the buyer realises the brakes need replacing, as does the cambelt and clutch, and the tyres, too. Well, what then?

Perhaps the most important recommendation of the Review as regards the framework for dealing with children presenting with transgender ideation is in Recommendation #2 which says “The framework should be kept under review and evolve to reflect emerging evidence.” One would like to think that the missing objectivity can find its way into medical practice via this route. However, that does rely upon an NHS free from ideological influence. And removal of the ideologues from the NHS was, if anything, the biggest missing recommendation.

The Cass Review Final Report has been published. Recently, I published a checklist against which we could measure it. Here is that list again, with commentary as to whether the review made the grade:

1. Will it perpetuate the lie that some people can actually *be* transgender? This is used as an excuse for the availability of medical interventions despite there being no evidence of clinical justification or net benefit. 

Yes, sadly, it did.

2. Will it continue to rely on gender incongruence (aka gender dysphoria) as if it were a valid diagnosis? We know these "diagnoses" are in fact collections of feelings, and we've known for years they are frequently faked.

Patients 'coached to fast-track sex change treatment'

Vulnerable patients are being "coached" on how to outwit a psychological evaluation in order to gain access to hormone treatment and gender-related surgery, it has been claimed.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/patients-coached-to-fast-track-sex-change-treatment/38543409.html

Yes, sadly, it did.

3. Will it acknowledge the existence of transgender ideation as a precursor adopting a factitious "gender identity"?

Lifecycle of Transgender Ideation | Our Duty

Our Duty Lifecycle of Transgender Ideation

https://ourduty.group/education/lifecycle-of-transgender-ideation/

No, sadly, it did not.

4. Will it acknowledge that its terms of reference were inappropriate in that it did not include adolescents over 18 years of age (or even vulnerable adults over 25)?

Surely the review was intended to deal with the phenomenon of adolescent transgender ideation? Why did it not? 

Hurrah! This point was addressed adequately. Un point.

5. Will it recognise that Early Intervention can be very successful at preventing the rumination that can lead to transgender ideation becoming persistent, and sometimes intractable? If so, will such help be resourced appropriately? 

Nope, no understanding of the aetiology of gender distressed was evident.

6. Will it recognise the ideological capture of the NHS by gender identity ideology and make recommendations for the wholesale removal of that ideology, and a return to evidence-based medicine? 

No, sadly, it did not.

7. Will it use objective language?

Or will it use the language of gender identity ideology and so perpetuate the lies of the gender identity advocacy movement? 

No, sadly, it did not. The language of the ideologues peppered the entire report.

8. Will it make recommendations that render CAMHS and the NHS safe for children and young people with transgender ideation?

This is the most crucial question. If medicalisation remains an option (at any age on the NHS), then young people will not be safe. 

No, criminally, the medical pathway remains an option.

9. Will it uphold the rights of parents to refuse to accommodate the tenets of gender identity ideology to the extent that it renders moves to embed transgenderism into society via 'conversion therapy' laws untenable? 

No, the review did not address this important issue. Although parents’ role was referenced in a positive manner. Maybe half a mark.

10. Will it recognise the value of 'Supportive Waiting' (watchful waiting with added timely, targeted counselling interventions) as the best course for chronic transgender ideation? 

No, the review did not look at current best practice at all.

11. Cass has previously stated we ought to accept gender identity ideology because of a 'generational shift'. She was wrong to do so. Will her final review reject the Zeitgeist in favour of objectivity? 

Sadly not. The validity of generational trends was not questioned yet they appeared to inform the report.

12. Will the final Cass Review address the ethical case for banning opposite-sex imitation medicine?

It was touched upon “one of the most challenging ethical questions is whether and/ or when medical intervention is the correct response”. But the question was left unexplored.

13. Will there be recognition that transgender ideation affects different cohorts in different ways, and that the science for pre-pubescent boys, or middle-aged men, does not apply to adolescents of either sex? i.e. transgenderism is not homogenous. 

Hurrah! Yes, the Cass Review got there in the end. Un point.

14. Will the Cass Review offer recommendations for holistic treatment of detransitioners?

The victims of the trans medical scandal deserve the best possible remediation. 

Hurrah! Yes, the Cass Review got there in the end. Un point.

15. Will there be acknowledgment that social norms are a significant contributory factor in transgender ideation and that their management requires a similar approach to that taken with diesel particulates when they were implicated in childhood asthma?

There was acknowledgment that social factors were at play. However, there were no public health recommendations to address this craze. Half a point. 

So there we have it.

Out of a possible score of 15, the Cass Review garnered the grand total of 4 points.

So we are 4/15ths the way to resolving this medical scandal.

The fight goes on.

If you can, please subscribe, or make a donation to Our Duty, thank you. 

This story has been sat in my disk drive for four years. I have steadfastly resisted telling it because I could not see the point. Partly, I guess, is that I have wished to focus on helping society rid itself of gender identity ideology and helping parents work out how to save their children from that sick cult. Every so often, however, another straw is added to the camel’s back. When I read a lie. As they say, the truth will out. Frequently I get asked something that prompts me to tell this story. I would rather not, it still makes my blood pressure rise. However, if I don’t tell it, then others tell their versions.

This isn’t a “he said, she said” - there are witnesses, including an accredited journalist.

This isn’t about who gets the credit. I have spoken with Harry Miller of Fair Cop and with Chris Elston, aka Billboard Chris, about Harry Truman’s idea that in great enterprises, such as the one that we are embarked upon, it matters not who gets the credit. The truth is, of course, that correctly placed credit does serve to add extrinsic motivation to the oodles of intrinsic motivation pioneers already have. And in the dark months, that external acknowledgment of one’s contribution can help things continue at a better pace. The last thing we want is anything that can slow down the progress we could have made in saving children from the harms of gender. All the same, any lack of progress cannot be blamed on those who fail to recognise. Selling one’s self has to be part of the mix, that and top advocacy. How did I fail to persuade those with whom I disagreed that I was right (and I was right, and I have been vindicated)? Being a Cassandra is a curse.

In Autumn 2016 my daughter, having been groomed by her school and Allsorts Youth, declared she was transgender.

I spent 2017 knowing it was wrong and desperately trying to find out why, and what could be done, and who shared my point of view.

I spoke with Stephanie Davies-Arai at Transgender Trend, and asked whether parent-peer support was something they did or would do. They did not have the capacity or intent, so I volunteered to establish something. Peer-support is clinically proven to be useful in communities affected by grief and the sorts of challenges that can affect mental health, so I knew it was needed.

I started to bring together parents affected by having a child think of themselves as transgender.

As part of this project, I set about educating myself as best I could, and I attended my first event – A Woman’s Place in Brighton – it was the presence of a detransitioner, Gill Smith, which drew me. Kathleen Stock was also speaking there.

The hardest part of building any enterprise is the bootstrapping, the first eighteen months. There is no brand to act as a magnet, no reputation, the ideas are still new and forming and beyond the core, often difficult to sell.

On 5^th December 2018 I hosted a meeting at the Marquis of Cornwallis pub in Bloomsbury for parents of ROGD kids and any other interested parties. This was the day parent peer-support in UK moved from online and into the real world.

The group started growing. We used a Slack community ‘Critical Critters’ which allowed us to grow an online membership of about 60.

In the Spring of 2019 my daughter started taking testosterone, I was wrecked.

By the Summer of 2019 we decided to have a business meeting to decide upon a name and become properly established. The meeting was scheduled for October 12th in a hotel in Bayswater.

Shortly prior to that meeting one member, let’s call her ‘B’ asked me whether another member, let’s call her ‘A’ could chair the meeting. I am always keen for others to step up, so I agreed. It did not dawn on me until it was too late that in such an important meeting it was always me who should have been in the chair. Nevertheless, as the meeting got underway, I stood at the front and started to do a brief introduction. In a move that still stuns me to this day, ‘A’ physically elbowed me in the ribs to push me aside. I genuinely did not know what to do, and I was at a complete loss for words. Thus, the tone of that fateful meeting had been set.

Why did I not respond immediately? A man would expect instant retaliation. Women, on the other hand rely on men to be socially conditioned to restrain themselves. Some abuse this privilege.

I had invited journalist Joani Walsh to attend and observe the meeting. Another member, let’s call him ‘C’ objected, supported by ‘A’ and ‘B’. It was becoming clear there was a trio seeking to run the show, my show, and they didn’t want any witnesses.

Charlie Evans, the detransitioner du jour, was our guest speaker that day.

The chairing of the meeting was so amateurish that the chair, ‘A’ did more speaking than our guest. This served to further foul my already deteriorating mood.

On the agenda was the choosing of a name, and I suggested Bayswater Support Group, as the meeting progressed, it became clear that a ‘boardroom coup’ was in progress and that the people who now run the group with that name had been conspiring behind my back to takeover that which I had started.

I had gone into the meeting assuming my position as leader was unquestioned. After all, everyone was there because of the group that I had established, from scratch, over many months. That the others had hitherto asked for my input for anything material gave me a sense of security as to my role that, it turns out, was unfounded.

The irony was that if they had done this honestly and involved me, I would have let it happen, I was wrecked by what was happening to my daughter. I would have happily taken a non-executive director type role. However, two significant factors meant that I could not let this slide. I had to regain control of the group. Both reasons were principles.

My principles were borne out of my contempt for lies.

Lies are toxic. In an organisation they lead to distrust and resentment. I was not going to have liars running an organisation that I founded. This trio had used deceit and dishonesty to wrest control.

The first principled stance was that we should be founded on truth and honesty. It is truth and honesty that will, should they prevail, end the crazy gender identity ideology harming our children. I simply could not allow significant control of this most important endeavour fall into the hands of those whom I knew to be dishonest and deceitful.

They had also expressed an intention to present themselves as a moderate voice looking for consensus. I had always known that no consensus was possible. Arguing that the Earth is discus-shaped is just as daft as arguing that it is completely flat. Transgenderism is a lie, and the Earth is a sphere (slightly flattened at the poles). The only honourable position to take is that which involves no lies. No, it cannot be said that ‘gender affirming care’ can be beneficial for some people. Mental distress resolves with time, amputated body parts do not. There is no merit in being ‘cautious’ about the medicalisation of vulnerable young people in the name of gender, one has to be completely opposed to it. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, and the illogicality of any perceived ‘benefit’, it is simply unethical.

The second principle, then, is that we should be driven by ethics, by duty, “First Do No Harm”; the proposed ‘cautious and pragmatic’ approach, rejecting the founders’ consensus, was a betrayal of these principles. I could not in all conscience go along with it.

I had spent over a year bringing people together and creating a community. This was ‘my baby’ and I was being bullied. The stress of my daughter being on testosterone, having just been literally elbowed aside, and seeing my hard work undermined, put me well out of my comfort zone. Nevertheless, I tried to keep a level head. It took about two months for the resulting nervous breakdown to arrive, and a good few more afterwards for it to pass. Contracting Covid did not help.

The group I had assembled could be roughly divided into two halves. The newbies who had not quite worked it all out yet. And the old hands who knew that the NHS gender operation, including CAMHS, was wrongheaded and profoundly unsafe. What hurt me most was the few old hands who sided with the deceitful upstarts.

There were policies, too, that those of us who had been involved for a while had assumed were givens: The NHS was unsafe, no child was transgender, Kellie-Jay Keen (aka Posie Parker) was marvellous, this was an international endeavour (how could we turn down an overseas parent coming for help), all opposite-sex imitation medicine should be classified as cosmetic and elective. You get the idea.

The upstarts rejected all of these.

My principles informed the new name I had for our group: ‘Our Duty’. To this day I do not know why I did not keep the Bayswater name (I had taken a dislike to the name despite it being my suggestion), it would have been strategically advantageous retaining it because there were many at that meeting who had no idea what was going on. Again, I assumed that everybody could see the crime for what it was and would swing behind me. I was wrong. I was also mistaken to have confidence in the idea that any grouping built on a foundation of deceit would not last long.

Our Duty launched that same month with an article in The Sunday Times.

By my reckoning, this episode set our movement back by at least one year. The NHS is removing adolescent women’s breasts at a rate of one operation per day. If you ever wonder why I can be so bitter and angry at what happened in October 2019, there is your answer.

I have seen four different origin stories for the Bayswater Support Group, none of them are true. A group with about 60 members laboriously gathered over 18 months is not ‘founded’ when it splits in two. It was the publication of one fictitious account in Dr Az Hakeem’s book Detrans that finally tipped me into telling this story. Dr Hakeem is a good man, so I am sure he was oblivious to the lies in the chapter contributed by ‘A’.

Over this last six years I have seen the effect that parent peer-support can have. Yes, we help families help their children desist from transgender ideation, and that is hugely satisfying when it happens. Our detractors call it conversion therapy, we call it reconnecting with reality. Very many of our parents have had their children suffering the transgender delusion for too long, and their need to relate to others who understand can be as raw five years in as it was on day one. We could always do more, more support, more activism, more advocacy and more education.

We tell it as it is. No, your child is not transgender, they just think that they are.

That old saying “the truth shall set you free” is something everyone in this mess needs to hear and believe in.

We are led to believe that the final Cass Review is imminent. I have previously stated I think it will be a sop, and was just 'the political long grass', four years of dodging the issue. When it is published, what should we look out for? Here's your checklist... 

1. Will it perpetuate the lie that some people can actually *be* transgender? This is used as an excuse for the availability of medical interventions despite there being no evidence of clinical justification or net benefit. 

2. Will it continue to rely on gender incongruence (aka gender dysphoria) as if it were a valid diagnosis? We know these "diagnoses" are in fact collections of feelings, and we've known for years they are frequently faked.

Patients 'coached to fast-track sex change treatment'

Vulnerable patients are being "coached" on how to outwit a psychological evaluation in order to gain access to hormone treatment and gender-related surgery, it has been claimed.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/patients-coached-to-fast-track-sex-change-treatment/38543409.html

3. Will it acknowledge the existence of transgender ideation as a precursor adopting a factitious "gender identity"?

Lifecycle of Transgender Ideation | Our Duty

Our Duty Lifecycle of Transgender Ideation

https://ourduty.group/education/lifecycle-of-transgender-ideation/

4. Will it acknowledge that its terms of reference were inappropriate in that it did not include adolescents over 18 years of age (or even vulnerable adults over 25)?

Surely the review was intended to deal with the phenomenon of adolescent transgender ideation? Why did it not? 

5. Will it recognise that Early Intervention can be very successful at preventing the rumination that can lead to transgender ideation becoming persistent, and sometimes intractable? If so, will such help be resourced appropriately? 

6. Will it recognise the ideological capture of the NHS by gender identity ideology and make recommendations for the wholesale removal of that ideology, and a return to evidence-based medicine? 

7. Will it use objective language?

Or will it use the language of gender identity ideology and so perpetuate the lies of the gender identity advocacy movement? 

8. Will it make recommendations that render CAMHS and the NHS safe for children and young people with transgender ideation?

This is the most crucial question. If medicalisation remains an option (at any age on the NHS), then young people will not be safe. 

9. Will it uphold the rights of parents to refuse to accommodate the tenets of gender identity ideology to the extent that it renders moves to embed transgenderism into society via 'conversion therapy' laws untenable? 

10. Will it recognise the value of 'Supportive Waiting' (watchful waiting with added timely, targeted counselling interventions) as the best course for chronic transgender ideation? 

11. Cass has previously stated we ought to accept gender identity ideology because of a 'generational shift'. She was wrong to do so. Will her final review reject the Zeitgeist in favour of objectivity? 

12. Will the final Cass Review address the ethical case for banning opposite-sex imitation medicine?

13. Will there be recognition that transgender ideation affects different cohorts in different ways, and that the science for pre-pubescent boys, or middle-aged men, does not apply to adolescents of either sex? i.e. transgenderism is not homogenous. 

14. Will the Cass Review offer recommendations for holistic treatment of detransitioners?

The victims of the trans medical scandal deserve the best possible remediation. 

15. Will there be acknowledgment that social norms are a significant contributory factor in transgender ideation and that their management requires a similar approach to that taken with diesel particulates when they were implicated in childhood asthma? 

I am sure that I have missed some checks from this 'off the top of my head' list. Which checks would you add?

If you know any journalists who will be covering the Cass Review when it comes out, please make sure they have this list so they can do a proper job. 

I have been involved in resisting gender ideology for a long time (my first run-in came during my teaching career in 2010), I objected to being told to lie about the sex of a new student. Things ramped up when my daughter started to identify as a transman in 2015. With the dearth of information back then I was moved to establish parent peer support in UK in 2018. In late 2019, the group I founded split into two factions (which became Our Duty and Bayswater). This was the first time I had encountered ideological division within the movement. At its simplest, Our Duty rejected the affirmative model of care, others were ‘cautious’ about it. I was adamant the NHS was unsafe, others took a different view. My vindication brings me no succour, I just wish I had been more persuasive at the point when it mattered.

In the last five years, we have seen more and more ‘gender critical’ groups emerge. By and large, this looks like a good thing. But is it?

One key turning point for me was when we challenged the executive board and board of governors at the Tavistock in 2019. Parents told those present that the Tavistock GIDS and GIC were harming our children. That the adolescent cohort (mainly girls) should not be treated the same way as pre-pubescent boys and middle aged men upon which almost all available research centred. That there was no way of diagnosing who would persist. That our children had underlying conditions that made them susceptible. That there were no longitudinal studies into the adolescent cohort. Not only were our entreaties ignored by the Tavistock board (and they were most upset we got our story in The Sunday Times), but this episode was conspicuously absent from Hannah Barnes book Time to Think, despite Hannah being with us on that day. Now, the reason for that might well be that the focus on the book is on the dissent within the staff, and on the evidence that does exist, and that strict adherence to the scientific method means that there is no published, peer-reviewed, high-quality evidence to support our claims. That is true. And it is around this point that I think we have a problem.

Jack Drescher, in a letter to The New York Times, wrote in 2013 that we have no way of knowing who would persist and who would desist and consequently what became known as the ‘affirmative model of care’ was controversial. We always knew that social affirmation led to physical harm. What seems to be holding everything up is the need by many to have this knowledge confirmed in a peer-reviewed paper, or by the Cass Review Interim Report, before it is given any credence. And every single day we delay results in buckets filled with adolescent breasts.

If we see a building burning down, are we going to wait for an academic paper to be published that examines whether the outcome was negative or positive for the regeneration of the community, with how many who died by smoke inhalation or unsurvivable burns a secondary analysis? Or are we going to call the fire brigade and see if there is anything that can be done in the here and now?

We all know that academic research on transgender ideation is virtually impossible to get published because of the woke capture of academia. There is a high chance it might get compromised on its way through such gatekeeping. And in any case, such research will lag observations by years. 

There is scientific research, albeit of low quality, that seems to indicate that transgender ideation might be attributable to neurological or endocrinal differences. Even if such research were unequivocal and of high-quality, it should not point to a recognition of transgenderism as a human characteristic, instead it should be used to identify effective treatment pathways to eliminate the ideation. Because the ideation leads to unnecessary harm (even if you want to qualify that by adding ‘to those who detransition’, and I do not).

As I see it, the problems facing us are as follows:

1. Trite facts are not given due weight (e.g. transition is a lie)

2. Observations are not given due weight (e.g. kids are being harmed)

3. Research is too slow and too patchy, (and is a poor excuse for delay).

4. The scientific method is placed above the alleviation of human suffering

It is this last point that drives me. Transgender ideation leads to human suffering. To end that suffering we must end transgender ideation. Prevention is better than cure, and cure is better than lifelong treatment. Trite facts that need to be given more weight.

We prevent transgender ideation by erasing the notion that being transgender is a human attribute worthy of recognition and protection in law. When it ceases to be a valid lifestyle choice, fewer people will latch onto it.

We cure transgender ideation by helping its sufferers reconnect with reality. You are your sex. Learn to love the body nature gave you. Get into nature. Stop ruminating. Ditch the internet and connect with real people who will not humour any delusions. 

If you are concerned with the alleviation of human suffering, then I hope you can see that only by rejecting the lie of transgenderism can we protect adolescents from irreversible damage and their parents from lifelong grief.

If one does not recognise the importance and the challenges posed by the problems I describe, then one is going to be unnecessarily equivocal about what needs to be done. My dream is for there to be no people identifying as transgender. Transgender ideation is, like suicidal ideation, a maladaptive coping mechanism and one which any professional working in the field should wish to see their patient reject for the inappropriate solution is presents.

Which brings me back to ideological differences. What I have described above, is a logical combination of objective truth and moral rectitude - first do no harm. I should also add the precautionary principle (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). There is a branch of logic and ethics, which ties these things together - it is called deontology. Deontology, as an ethical and moral framework, emphasises the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions based on adherence to moral rules or duties. It is why Our Duty is called Our Duty.

An alternative approach might take a look at the consequences of one’s actions and weigh up the utility of making a decision based on predicted outcomes. Even then, the amputation of healthy genitalia would seem to indicate the righteousness of the deontic approach. Some others might call upon beneficence - the perceived good that the affirmative model is said to deliver, or the human right to bodily autonomy (ignoring the problems around informed consent) in an attempt to discern the right course of action. Some might point to the need to be pragmatic, only focus on what they perceive to be possible. Even so, I struggle to find any justification for being cautious about the affirmative model, nor any cause to deny the urgency of our burning building. I should also point out that I do not reject the scientific method, indeed I am all in favour of it, we just need it to be free from political interference, faster, more comprehensive, and focused on the search for the truth.

The reason I have been moved to write this article is that there are some people who think that medical interventions for adolescents with transgender ideation are justified. They think that some people might benefit from a lifetime living a lie, medicalised to possible sterility and premature death or infirmity. It is my view that the only just reason for thinking this way is a slavish adherence to the scientific method, to the primacy of published research, and a profoundly respectable honesty in saying “well, we just don’t know”.

So what I am saying is that I am an atheist when it comes to transgenderism, and others are agnostic. For many of them, their agnosticism is a perfectly logical position to take. 

My social media heading uses a picture that alludes to Bertrand Russell’s teapot. One might assert that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, but we can neither prove it nor disprove it. Instead we must look at the probability of such an assertion being true.

Another common philosophical argument is that embodied in Pascal’s Wager. When something is unprovable then we must gamble based on our knowledge of the expected outcomes. Blaise Pascal used this to suggest that it is better to believe in God than not. What happens when we apply this mode of thinking to a belief in the transgender person?

In conclusion, we are obliged to pursue the truth, but when we do not know it we cannot abrogate its discovery to others. We must apply our knowledge, our logic, our morality, and our instincts to asserting what we know to be right. This, though, is not some act of faith - teapot or God - a great many of the unknowns are known to us on the ground, with skin in the game, they are just not known to the high priests of academia. Those of us calling for reality or duty or the truth to prevail, do not claim to know everything. Even if all our knowledge was accepted as canon tomorrow, there will still be gaps.

But we know enough. This is just a call to have our observations, ethics and logic afforded their due. The sensible gamble is that transgender people do not exist (as a diagnosable category worthy of recognition in law), neither does the teapot. Team Reality has always been ahead of its time. We need help developing and propagating this wisdom, your help to alleviate the human suffering caused by transgender ideation, whatever you choose to do, will benefit mankind.

These activists have, through their wealth and influence, and through their intimidation tactics, succeeded in getting their new religion embedded into most of society.

The government’s own education guidance states that schools must “Pupils should be taught the facts and the law about sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity”. However, there is no consensus around what ‘facts’ pertain to ‘gender identity’ and there is no law, at all.

Outside bodies, with the political aim of ‘validating’ the identities of those convinced they are the opposite sex to reality, have exploited this void, where there are no facts they promote their opinions as fact e.g. “some people are born in the wrong body”.

Parents should be most alarmed at these groups seeking to influence education. There are children vulnerable to taking on the idea that they might be ‘transgender’, they will ruminate upon that idea and convince themselves that they need medical intervention to imitate the opposite sex. This is clearly dangerous. Moreover, these groups seek to undermine other boundaries, particularly when it comes to children’s attitudes to sex. Whether these pressure groups contain paedophiles or whether they just believe that “minor attracted persons” are just another letter that needs adding to the alphabetti-spaghetti beyond LGB, is not for me to say. Nevertheless, parents have a right to be concerned. A parent’s job is to protect their child from bad ideas that can put them in harm’s way. Schools have a safeguarding duty, too; but in the rush to be trendy, diverse, and inclusive, they have forgotten their duty of care.

Parents now have the opportunity to blow the whistle, to name and shame schools that are dangerous or harmful in their policies and actions. https://offred.org/submit-evidence  

Transgender Trend has an excellent briefing on the subject. https://www.transgendertrend.com/teaching-gender-ideology-schools/

See also Safe Schools Alliance

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/