fffb8d0a

The Tories need to make a clear break from gender ideology

Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:38:20 GMT

We need to know that the argument in favour of science, and against ideology, has been won, inside the party.

Written by Caroline Ffiske, one of the Directors of Conservatives for Women, 17 February 2025.

On Friday, the House of Commons hosted a debate to mark “LGBT+ History Month”. Why and when the House of Commons decided to embrace the dubious “+” is anyone’s guess.

The debate is worth reading as Labour lays out its current thinking on everything from the proposed conversion therapy ban to the teaching of gender identity in schools.

However, it was the comments of the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, Mims Davies, which caught the attention of Conservatives.

Under the last Conservative Government, when Kemi Badenoch was the Minister with this brief, she and her team worked night and day to reverse the encroachment of ‘gender ideology’ across our public sector and institutions.

There is no science behind the idea of ‘inner gender identity’.The idea that it should be prioritised over sex in law, public policy, and day-to day life, has done immense damage - eroding free speech, women’s rights, child safeguarding, and the fundamental basis of our society in science and reason. Kemi Badenoch understands this. She has sought to reposition the Conservative Party, openly admitting it made ‘mistakes’ in the past, including in this area, and has emphasised that the Party is ‘under new leadership’.

In Friday's debate, it seemed that Mims Davies was not aligned with respect to her understanding of gender ideology and its impact. She proudly reminded people of how the previous Conservative government had used taxpayers' funds to promote gender ideology, including to school children.

Davies said “ I am very proud of the work we did to ensure that anti-bullying schemes were rolled out for students in 2012, to support LGBT+ students.” We have been unable to find these 2012 schemes, but the follow-up anti-bullying schemes developed by the Conservatives were an important part of foisting gender ideology into schools and closing down dissent from parents and teachers.

In 2016 the Government allocated £3 million of taxpayers' funds to tackle Homophobic, Transphobic, and Biphobic Bullying in schools.

Funds went to ten bodies, including the LGBT Consortium, the Proud Trust, and Stonewall, all of whom by this time were invested in the promotion of gender ideology. Stonewall tells school children that, not just a vulnerable few, but that “everyone" has a gender identity.

In 2021, the Government Equality Office announced a further round of funding with, recipients this time including Equaliteach. The resulting resource remains publicly available and is valuable evidence for what gender ideologues believe is suitable for our schools and our children. It is worth looking at in full .

Using taxpayers’ funds, Equaliteach promoted gender ideology to school children:

Equaliteach told schools they should compell speech - and affirm vulnerable children in new gender identities - setting a vulnerable few on a pathway to permanent damage:

Equaliteach told teachers that boys can use the girls toilets:

Equaliteach went so far as to warn schools not to work with groups who were then forming to fight gender ideology and protect children:

The Equaliteach material was so bad that the then new Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, publicly distanced herself from it . Liz Truss’s intervention, and her time as Minister, marked a turning point in the Conservative’s approach to gender ideology, a slow but serious reversion to science and sanity; one that continued under Badenoch and led to significant public policy advances, summarised here . (Key moments were Liz Truss saying no to 'gender self-ID' in the UK; three years later Badenoch and colleagues used Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to halt the gender recognition bill in Scotland. Lines in the sand were finally drawn.)

In Friday's speech, Mims Davies also referred to “the first ever LGBT+ survey of the population … undertaken under the Conservatives” in 2017. This was another low point - signed off by Penny Mordaunt.

A Government document took seriously, terms emanating from teenagers and transgressors on the internet: ‘asexual and pansexual’, ‘non-binary and genderqueer’.

The document blithely played back an unfolding social tragedy, a drift into pseudoscience and body dysmorphia amongst teenage girls, and used anti-scientific language such as ‘assigned female at birth’, and elsewhere, 'cisgender'.

It casually reported that some children are transitioning at school.

Following through from the survey, the Government Equality Office published an LGBT Action Plan from which further gender ideology and pseudoscience became embedded in public policy.

But as above, Liz Truss, then Kemi Badenoch, began to turn the tide.

But now we need to know, with certainty, that the Conservative Party is completely committed to rejecting gender ideology and all its manifold harms, including serious medical harm for vulnerable children, and the undermining of dignity, privacy, and safety of women.

Our public policy and law must be based in science and reason - and the elementary truth that we are a sexed species and that sex matters in public policy and public life.

Mims Davies’ intervention on Friday sowed considerable doubt.

For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:47:59 GMT

FAQs on this landmark case

A controversial and landmark case, For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers is being heard in the Supreme Court later this month. The judicial decision, which will be issued some time after the hearing, should bring some much needed legal clarity as to whether the definition of woman in the Equality Act 2010 extends to men who have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

In anticipation of the hearing, we have prepared some FAQs on the forthcoming For Women Scotland case.

Who is bringing the legal action?

The case is being brought by For Women Scotland Limited (“FWS”), a Scottish campaign group focused on safeguarding sex-based rights for women and challenging policies and legislation which undermine these rights in Scotland. FWS are suing the Scottish Government, hence the court papers refer to the Scottish Ministers as a party to proceedings.

What is the case about?

It stems from the definition of “woman” under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. This 2018 Act sought to improve the representation of women by setting targets for increasing their proportion on public boards. The Scottish Government issued guidance specifying that women meant anyone “living as a woman”. FWS brought a litigation (now known as FWS1) arguing against this extended definition and they were successful, leading to new statutory guidelines being introduced. However the revised guidelines still went further than they should have, in our opinion, as the guidance stated that the definition of “women” included a man with a Gender Recognition Certificate. FWS challenged this again in the Scottish courts, arguing that the definition of female for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 had effectively been redefined and that it is not lawful to extend the definition beyond biological women. Having lost their appeals in the senior Scottish courts in 2022 and 2023, FWS’s latest appeal now brings them to the Supreme Court in London, the highest court in the United Kingdom.

Who are the Appellants and Respondents?

FWS, as the party bringing the appeal, might be referred to in court as the Appellants and the party they are bringing the legal action against and therefore the party obliged to respond is the Scottish Ministers, known as, the Respondents.

Is the case only of relevance to Scottish women on public boards?

Absolutely not. The legal action started in Scotland, but because it relates to the Equality Act, which is legislation that applies to England, Scotland, and Wales, it has a much wider ramifications for UK wide equalities legislation for all of the three countries.

What’s at stake?

The judicial decision should clarify what a woman is, focusing on whether a person with a full Gender Recognition Certificate which recognises their gender as female, is a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act. The decision will affect rights to single-sex spaces, services and associations. This has arisen as the UK Government has not sought to make a clarificatory amendment to the Equality Act via Parliament to give us the clear legal protection needed. Also as the Supreme Court is the most senior one in the UK, its judicial decisions are likely to have a persuasive effect on any subsequent legal disputes in this area of law even though the statutory position will still appear rather unclear. Lower courts across the UK will be bound to take the Supreme Court’s decision into consideration.

What other parties are involved?

A few organisations have been granted permission to “intervene’ in the appeal which means they can each provide a written submission supporting FWS or the Scottish Ministers as the case may be. Some organisations have additionally been granted leave to present brief oral submissions in court during the hearing. The FWS Interveners are being made by Sex Matters (written and oral ones), Scottish Lesbians, The Lesbian Project and LGB Alliance (a joint written submission on behalf of all three). All of these written submissions have been published and are available online, as is FWS’s case summary. However the Scottish Ministers and their two Interveners have adopted a different approach. The first Intervener, the Equality and Human RIghts Commission, has confirmed that it has delivered to court a written submission supporting the Scottish Ministers and it will also provide a brief oral submission during the appeal hearing. However it has not yet published this publicly- it is entitled not to share it in advance but we think this is a curious approach. The Scottish Ministers and its second Intervener, Amnesty International, have also not made their submissions publicly available despite, of course, the public funded nature of the former and the EHRC. We await hearing these at court with baited breath or hopefully sooner if they are shared publicly in advance.

Is Conservatives For Women involved?

We are not directly involved but in light of the importance of this appeal and the considerable public interest in the case, we have tried to keep up the pressure on the Scottish Ministers and to get all their and their Interveners’ relevant information into the public domain. We have written to the Scottish Ministers and both of their Interveners, requesting copies of their submissions and requesting that they be made public in accordance with the principles of open justice. Unfortunately, to date, we are yet to receive a substantive response from any of the above parties.

When does the trial take place?

The appeal is due to start at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 26th November 2024 and the hearing will finish at some point on the following day, Wednesday 27th November . The Court sits until 4pm at the latest.

What can women do to evidence their support for For Women Scotland that week? Is there, for example, a protest taking place that day in Westminster?

So far as we are aware and as no final judgement is likely to be given on 27th and as only a few spaces are available in court, women are not gathering in significant numbers in Westminster on these two days. You can show your support be pledging funds to the case via the FWS website and/or by posting on social media to raise awareness.

Where can I watch it and when?

The Supreme Court is located in Westminster, very near to the Houses of Parliament. The appeal will be held in Court 1 but space for members of the public to attend is somewhat limited and it is expected to be full. The appeal will be live-streamed from the Supreme Court website so everyone can follow it wherever they are. We understand also that @Tribunal Tweets will be providing live regular reports regarding the appeal on X.

What happens in court during the appeal?

The hearing will start with an introduction by the chairing judge (called the President). He will outline the case and set out the order of arguments. Then the legal team acting for FWS as Appellant will speak first, presenting their arguments and explaining why they consider the previous ruling was incorrect. FWS are being represented by Aidan O’Neill KC and Spencer Keen. After this, the Appellant’s legal team respond, followed by one or more of the Interveners if the court has allowed them to do so. Usually the Appellant can make a brief reply and of course at any time the justices can ask questions challenging legal arguments or for clarification.

Who are the judges?

We understand that the judges will be Lord Reed (President) who is the UK’s most senior judge, together with Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler. Lord Reed is very much an expert on constitutional and human rights law, and his colleague Lady Rose has significant experience interpreting legislation such as the Equality Act. Lady Simler has had an equally distinguished career and is an expert in equality and discrimination law so her input may be critical to the case. These judges will act as the final arbiter on what our laws mean in the context of defining a woman and whether a man in possession of a GRC is included or excluded, in law.

When will the judgement be delivered?

An immediate judgement is not expected. Usually there is a delay in issuing the judgement and often some weeks elapse, possibly longer. The Justices will usually privately discuss and deliberate together after the hearing, then vote. One or more Justices will carefully draft the judgement and if others disagree they may draft their dissenting opinions too. They all get a chance to review these then the decision and judgement explaining how the decision was reached gets scheduled for release and is posted on the Supreme Court’s website. If the UK Supreme Court does not rule in favour of For Women Scotland, interpreting “sex” to include gender identity rather than strictly biological sex, this decision could have a complex set of implications and there may be a further trip on the horizon, this time to the European Court of Human Rights. We shall have to wait and see if this is the final chapter in the struggle or merely another twist and turn along the way.

What should the Government do if FWS are unsuccessful?

The Government could start to clear up the mess by introducing a simple amendment to the Equality Act; however Anneliese Dodds appears not to be admitting that this problem with the Equality Act needs fixing. Imagine a government not being able to admit, for example, that women are right to be concerned that our privacy, safety, and rights are being compromised if spaces designated for women (such as changing rooms, shelters, sports, prisons and lesbian associations) are accessible to individuals based on gender identity rather than biological sex. We know that Kemi Badenoch will share our concerns and will do what she can to help fix this mess.

The Bar Standards’ “Equality Proposals” create risks for Women

Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:48:36 GMT

Will a gender critical barrister feel free to express her views in the workplace? Those of her client in court?

This post is written by one of our members who wishes to remain anonymous. She is a non-practicing solicitor.

The last few years have seen a profusion of legal cases brought in the UK courts and employment tribunals to protect the rights of women and children. In particular, Maya Forstater successfully brought a discrimination case against her employer to defend her gender-critical (GC) beliefs, which resulted in them being protected as beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.

This legal victory, and others ranging from protecting rape victims, to free speech in universities, has been pivotal in protecting gender critical beliefs under English law and affirming that biological sex matters in policy and public life. Many cases relate to potential ambiguity in the Equality Act 2010, and the recent trend reflects how courts and tribunals in the UK have to grapple with balancing the rights of individuals to express sex realist beliefs and the possible impact on others.

However, our ability to use the courts and employment tribunals to shape the British landscape further may be under threat.

Recently, the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) opened a consultation aimed at changing Core Duty 8 of its handbook, which states that barristers must not discriminate. The proposed change would wholly replace this entirely sensible duty and, instead, require barristers to actively “advance equality, diversity, and inclusion” (EDI) in their professional conduct.

The BSB’s proposal has been framed as an essential step to further promoting fairness and inclusion within the law. However, the proposed new Duty is concerning for many reasons; the ones set out below are merely a few.

Firstly, there is a distinct lack of clarity as to what the proposed Duty amounts to as the draft Code does not clearly define what EDI means nor how a barrister is to demonstrate their compliance. The new Duty certainly appears to extend well beyond the scope of recruitment and purports to attempt to apply to barristers in their legal practice.

Let’s turn to a client wishing to instruct a barrister and a barrister wishing to accept a brief. Arguably, a lawyer could have reservations that a gender critical client’s views might conflict with EDI; therefore, receiving a brief from such a client could pose a risk for a barrister in striving to adhere to the new Duty. GC clients could face a scarcity of barristers willing to act for them. This is of grave concern.

Currently, it is fundamentally accepted that barristers, under what is informally known as the “Cab Rank Rule”, are always obliged to take a case in a field of law in which they have the requisite level of legal competence, provided the client can pay their fees and that the barrister has time in their schedule to do the work. Embedded in this rule is a clear principle of non-discrimination; whether by reference to a client’s identity, cause, or merits of the case.

The Cab Rank Rule applies where a client holds views with which a barrister may well disagree. This ensures access to justice even when the case is controversial or unpopular so that clients can find legal representation. The new Duty attempts to shift the goalposts and arguably empowers a barrister to decline to accept a brief that doesn’t meet ambiguous EDI criteria. This entirely conflicts with the Cab Rank rule so that specific clients could be discriminated against.

One could easily imagine a scenario where a barrister subject to the new Duty could feel uncomfortable about taking on a brief relating to gender identity ideology, fearful of even running legal arguments in favour of sex realism in court. The legal debates crucial to protecting women’s spaces, safety, and fairness may be perceived as conflicting with EDI's “prevailing” views.

A barrister may be concerned about potentially breaching the new duty when arguing that, for example, one group with a protected characteristic (women) takes priority over another under the Equality Act, in particular circumstances. We all know that conflicts between groups with competing protected characteristics are inevitable, and courts are often where these conflicts are resolved.

The courts and the legal teams representing all sides must remain independent and impartial so that there is a forum for resolving these disputes fairly. Barristers should not be constrained or concerned when deciding whether to take on a brief, and they should certainly not be obliged to consider whether a brief meets EDI targets.

Even if a GC client manages to find a barrister prepared to act for them under the proposed Duty, the chance of a successful court outcome could be reduced. It is unclear how, for example, a barrister would be able to freely advocate on a GC client's behalf or cross-examine a witness openly without fear of breaching the EDI parameters.

The costs involved in bringing any legal action are already significant; GC clients may be even more reluctant to opt for the judicial route or to appeal a court decision if an environment of fettered advocacy further diminishes their choice of counsel and their prospects of success.

Newly qualified barristers and those in the early stages of their careers seeking to establish themselves and build their practice could be particularly susceptible to forced compliance with the new Duty to retain a blemish-free record and avoid disciplinary actions. As to more established barristers, what would become of those who may well feel that they do not subscribe to the highly contested values of EDI? It is unclear how barristers holding GC beliefs will act under the proposed Duty.

By encouraging a barrister’s devotion to EDI, the BSB seems to be pushing legal professionals towards adhering to a prescribed set of political beliefs rather than championing the diversity of public debate. As Conservatives, we value freedom, fairness, meritocracy, and individual responsibility, all of which are inconsistent with EDI principles and accepted social justice narratives. Let’s leave barristers free to provide robust legal representation to all clients, regardless of a client’s beliefs, a barrister’s personal views, or external pressures.

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide on the appeal of the Judicial Review of For Women Scotland Limited to clarify what the Equality Act means at law for women. Future GC clients must have a fair chance of finding a legal team to represent them and a realistic prospect of a successful outcome, especially when this new Labour Government appears reluctant to clarify and protect women’s rights to single sex spaces and free association by bringing in legislation to rectify ambiguity in the current Equality Act 2010.

***

Please read and respond to the Bar Standards Consultation here .

A Message from Karen Varley, Founder of Conservatives for Women

Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:49:49 GMT

Almost a year ago I made the difficult decision to retire after the next general election. That election came a little earlier than expected but I made a promise to my family, so I am standing down from both Conservatives for Women and my parliamentary work.

I know I am leaving our task in excellent hands; my fellow directors at Conservatives for Women will continue to ensure we solidify the gains we have made within our party, and my dear friends and colleagues in many other groups will hold the new government's feet to the fire. Some of those groups did not even exist three years ago; our movement to restore sanity, safeguarding, and protect our sex-based rights goes from strength to strength.

I will be working in parliament until the end of July. I will continue to support our fight in any way I can, and will always be available if I can be of help. I am stepping back, but not completely stepping away. It has been an absolute honour to share this battle with you all.

For the foreseeable future though, you will find me listening to Test Match Special in my shed :-)

Karen Varley, 15 July 2024

A New Era - but the fight continues

Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:47:10 GMT

Five years ago Conservatives for Women was born. We were a group of women shocked by how a marginal, unscientific, and harmful idea was taking centre stage in our shared public life.

We knew, like everyone else, that a vanishingly small number of men and women seek to present as the opposite sex in their public and private lives and deserve to be treated civilly. But we did not believe that school children should be taught that ‘everyone has a gender identity’. We knew this involved the State lying to our children. We did not believe that vulnerable children should be supported by the NHS to take experimental drug treatments to suppress their puberty and then move on to cross sex hormones. We instinctively knew this was the State harming our children.

We also knew that women had a right to single sex spaces, services, sports, and wider opportunities.

And we knew that we had a right to talk about this; yet doing so, five years ago, appeared genuinely frightening. Women were losing their jobs.

So a small bunch of Conservative women got together. For several years we worked incredibly closely even though we had never met! Because our goal was clear. We knew that what was going on had to be addressed at a policy level; at a parliamentary level. We needed the Conservative Party to become gender critical.

While we worked cooperatively, Karen Varley became our group leader. I expect she had little idea, five years ago, that she would soon be working 70 hour weeks, engaging directly with Ministers, MPs and Peers, tackling serious policy issues in real time. Conservatives for Women, working alongside all the other gender critical groups and grassroots individuals, turned the tide on gender ideology in the UK. Together we created Terf Island.

We know that our work is very far from over. But now Karen is retiring and we would like to thank her for a truly immense contribution. She’s played her part in a historic movement. We look forward to someone, someday, writing up this period in full. They will need to talk to Karen.

And now our work will continue. Here’s to Karen Varley, grassroots women, and Terf Island!

Caroline ffiske, 15 July 2024

Election Special Newsletter

Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:07:15 GMT

We hope this newsletter finds you well and gearing up for an election battle that’s only just begun, and with the reminder that, however dire the polls, Teresa May had a 20 point lead over Jeremy Corbyn in 2017… and then she published the Conservative manifesto and enraged the public. Her lead plummeted and the Conservative’s majority shrank enough that she had to make a deal with the DUP to command a majority to govern. Labour should be publishing its manifesto tomorrow and there is every chance it contains something that will enrage the public at large. Even if that doesn’t transpire, there is still everything to play for, and to that end, our candidates need your help.

We already know the Conservatives have pledged in its manifesto to make the Equality Act clear , to clarify that sex means, and has always meant, biological sex, and not something that can be modified by a piece of paper. This, along with other manifesto commitments, is a measure that will do a great deal to help preserve single sex spaces, and protect the safety and dignity of women and girls. We now need to get out there and make it clear that our candidates not only know what a woman actually is, but will always put the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls first. If you haven’t read it, the full manifesto can be found here .

We highlighted some of the key statements in our X thread here .

One of the first candidates to give a clear and well informed response to questions on women’s rights and child safeguarding was Michael Tomlinson , Conservative candidate for Mid Dorset and North Poole.

Let us know if your candidate says something useful!

Below, we have listed every Conservative candidate who is known to be supportive of our aims. Every one of these candidates needs support, whether it’s through encouraging messages via social media or by offering assistance with canvasing – any and all help, however seemingly small, is desperately needed. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and we are sure there may be more but we wanted to get this out to you quickly.

If you see them around and you intend to vote for them, tell them WHY they have your vote. If the opposition asks why you won’t vote for them, tell them too! Women's rights and child safeguarding matter.

If you would like to get directly involved with any of the campaigns for the PPCs listed, you should find contact details on their websites; if nobody gets back to you quickly then let us know via a DM on X or email us at info@conservativesforwomen.org as we have direct contact with many of the campaign coordinators.

If none of these MPs are local to you, there are still things you can do that help: follow them and like their pages/posts on social media for example. Many have a presence on X, Facebook, and Instagram.

You could consider doing some telephone canvassing - just half an hour a day could make a difference to any one of them. Contact them directly - or volunteer via the Conservatives website. Or do call one of our directors Caroline Ffiske on 07712 675 305 if you have not done this before and would like a few tips!

Let’s give this one last push before we all mark our Xs on the ballot papers.

First of all, the women:

Sitting MPs

Angela Richardson
No X

Guildford
https://www.angelarichardson.uk

Anna Firth
@Anna_Firth

Southend West & Leigh
https://www.annafirth.org.uk

Anne Marie Morris
@AnneMarieMorris
Newton Abbot

https://www.annemariemorris.co.uk

Carol i ne Ansell

@Caroline_Ansell
Eastbourne

https://www.carolineansell.co.uk

Caroline Johnson, Dr
@drcarolinej
Sleaford and North Hykeham

https://www.carolinejohnson.co.uk

Cherilyn Mackrory
@thisischerilyn
Truro & Falmouth

https://www.cherilynmackrory.org.uk

Elizabeth Truss
@trussliz
South West Norfolk
https://www.elizabethtruss.com

Esther McVey
@EstherMcVey1
Tatton
https://www.esthermcvey.com

Felicity Buchan
@FelicityBuchan
Kensington and Bayswater

https://www.felicitybuchan.com

Gillian Keegan
@GillianKeegan
Chichester
https://www.gilliankeegan.com

Jackie Doyle-Price
@JackieDP
Thurrock
https://www.jackiedoyleprice.com

Joy Morrissey
@joymorrissey
Beaconsfield
https://www.joymorrissey.uk

Julie Marson
@JulieMarsonMP
Hertford and Stortford
https://www.juliemarson.org.uk

Kemi Badenoch
@KemiBadenoch
North West Essex
https://www.kemibadenoch.org.uk/

Laura Farris
@Laura__Farris
Newbury
https://www.laurafarris.org.uk

Laura Trott
No X
Sevenoaks & Swanley
https://www.lauratrott.org.uk

Lia Nici
@lia_nici
Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes
https://www.lianici.org.uk

Lucy Frazer
@lucyfrazermp
Ely & East Cambridgeshire
https://www.lucyfrazer.org.uk

Maria Caulfield
@mariacaulfield
Lewes
https://www.mariacaulfield.co.uk

Michelle Donelan
@michelledonelan
Melksham & Devizes
https://www.michelledonelan.co.uk

Miriam Cates
@miriam_cates
Penistone & Stocksbridge
https://www.miriamcates.org.uk

Nusrat Ghani
@Nus_Ghani
Sussex Weald
https://www.nusghani.org.uk

Priti Patel
@pritipatel
Witham
https://www.withamconservatives.org.uk

Rachel Maclean
@redditchrachel
Redditch and the Villages
https://www.rachelmaclean.uk

Rebecca Harris
@RebeccaHarrisMP
Castle Point
https://www.rebeccaharris.org

Sally-Ann Hart
@SallyAnn1066
Hastings and Rye
https://www.sallyannhart.org.uk

Sarah Atherton
@SarahAthertonMP
Wrexham
https://www.sarahatherton.org.uk

Sheryll Murray
@sheryllmurray
South East Cornwall
https://www.southeastcornwallconservatives.com

Suella Braverman
@SuellaBraverman
Fareham and Waterlooville
https://www.suellabraverman.co.uk

Suzanne Webb
@Q66Suzi
Stourbridge
https://www.suzannewebb.org.uk

Victoria Atkins
@VictoriaAtkins
Louth & Horncastle
https://www.victoriaatkins.org.uk

New candidates

Katie Lam
No X
Weald of Kent
https://www.katieforkent.com/

Laura Weldon
@LauraWeldonPCK
Pontefract, Castleford & Knottingley
https://www.laura-weldon.co.uk

Nikki D a Costa
No X
North East Hertfordshire
https://www.nikkidacosta.uk/

Rebecca Paul
@Rebecca_SPaul
Reigate
https://www.rebeccapaul.uk

And the men:

Adam Holloway
@AdamHollowayMP
Gravesham
https://www.adamholloway.co.uk/

Anthony Browne
@AnthonyBrowneMP
https://www.anthonybrowne.org
St Neots & Mid Cambridgeshire

Andrew Lewer
@ALewerMBE
https://www.andrewlewer.com
Northampton South

Anthony Mangnall
@AnthonyMangnal1
https://www.anthonymangnall.co.uk/
South Devon

Ben Spencer
@DrBenSpencer
Runnymede and Weybridge
https://www.drbenspencer.org.uk/

Bernard Jenkin
@bernardjenkin
Harwich & North Essex
https://www.bernardjenkin.com/

Bob Seely
@IoWBobSeely
https://www.bobseely.org.uk/
Isle of Wight West

Brendan Clarke-Smith
@Bren4Bassetlaw
Bassetlaw
https://www.brendanclarkesmith.com/

Chris Loder
@chrisloder
West Dorset
https://www.chrisloder.co.uk/

Damian Green
@DamianGreen
https://www.damiangreen.co.uk/
Ashford, Hawkinge, and the Downs

Danny Kruger
@danny__kruger
https://www.dannykruger.org.uk/
East Wiltshire

Derek Thomas
@DT4Stives
St Ives
https://www.derekthomas.org/

Gareth Bacon
@Gareth_Bacon
Orpington
https://www.garethbacon.com/

Ian Duncan Smith
@MPIainDS
Chingford and Woodford Green
https://www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/

James Sunderland
@JamesSunderl
Bracknell
https://www.james4bracknell.org.uk/

Jerome Mayhew
@JeromeMayhew
Broadland and Fakenham
https://www.jeromemayhew.org.uk/

John Hayes
No X
South Holland and the Deepings
https://www.johnhayes.uk/

Jonathan Gullis
@GullisJonathan
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove & Talke
https://www.jonathangullis.com/

Jonathan Lord
No X
Woking
https://www.jonathanlord.co.uk/

Julian Lewis
No X
New Forest East
https://www.julianlewis.net/

Liam Fox
@LiamFox
North Somerset
https://www.liamfox.co.uk/

Lee Rowley
@Lee4NED
North East Derbyshire
https://www.lee4ned.com/

Mark Jenkinson
@markjenkinsonmp
Penrith & Solway
https://linktr.ee/markjenkinson

Michael Tomlinson
@Michael4MDNP
Mid Dorset and North Poole
https://www.michaeltomlinson.org.uk/

Neil O’Brien
@NeilDotObrien
Harborough, Oadby & Wigston
https://www.neilobrien.org.uk/

Nick Fletcher
@NickFletcherPPC
Doncaster East & the Isle of Axholme
https://www.nickfletcher.org.uk/

Paul Bristow
@paulbristow79
Peterborough
https://www.paulbristow.org.uk/

Peter Bottomley
@PBottomleyMP
Worthing West
https://www.sirpeterbottomley.com/

Philip Davies
@PhilipDaviesUK
Shipley
https://www.philip-davies.org.uk/

Ranil Jayawardena
@ranil
North East Hampshire
https://www.ranil.uk/

Richard Drax
No X
South Dorset
https://www.richarddrax.com/

Robin Millar
@RobinMillarMP
Bangor Aberconwy
https://www.robin-millar.org.uk/

Tom Hunt
@tomhunt1988
Ipswich
https://www.tom4ipswich.com/

Tom Randall
@Tom_Randall
Gedling
https://www.tomforgedling.com/

New Candidates

Alex Deane
@ajcdeane
Finchley & Golders Green
https://www.alexdeane.org.uk/

Craig Smith
@craig_smithUK
North West Leicestershire
https://www.craig-smith.uk/

Darren Millar
@DarrenMillarMS
Clwyd North
https://www.darrenmillar.wales/about-darren

Gareth W illiams
@GarethWatBucks
Chesham & Amersham
https://www.garethwilliams.org.uk/

Baroness Anne Jenkin Speech, 17 June 2023

Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:23:33 GMT

'Don’t turn your back on women and girls'

On Saturday 17th June, Baroness Anne Jenkin gave a speech at the Conservative Eastern Region & CWO Eastern Annual Conference, titled 'What Will Your Political Legacy Be?'

Baroness Jenkin spoke about her experiences in co-founding Women 2 Win in 2005, and her goal of getting more women into Parliament. It has been very successful, but as always, there is still more to do.

She then turned to another aspect of her political legacy, and it is that part of the speech we are honoured to publish today. Those who were present will recall the audience response; a thoroughly deserved standing ovation.

------------------------------------

“Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me turn now to another aspect of what I hope my political legacy will be. I have entered the fray in a connected, but different battle, a battle to defend the right to even name ourselves as women.

You cannot fail to have noticed that the word woman is being redefined. We get called ‘cervix havers’, ‘menstruators’, ‘birthing bodies’. In September 2021, the Lancet described us on its front cover as 'bodies with vaginas’.

The dictionary definition is very clear; a woman is an adult human female. The Equality Act 2010 is also clear: section 212 states 'woman' means a female of any age. Up until a few years ago, none of this was disputed. We all knew what a woman was, we probably didn't even think about it. I certainly didn’t. We all knew what a woman is because we all came out of one. Then slowly, insidiously, the word woman became somehow difficult to define.

The use of phrases such as 'cervix-havers' is not only dehumanising and problematic for women who don't understand this terminology; it is also politically dis-empowering. When the word woman gets expanded to include others, it means women and girls are left with no words to describe ourselves and our own unique needs.

On 12th June 2023 this issue was finally given a proper airing in a parliamentary debate in Westminster Hall. Many parliamentarians have spoken on issues surrounding the definition of sex in various debates in both houses, but this was the first time that 3 hours of debate was devoted to discussing why sex matters.

And, quite simply, we now need to look at clarifying the Equality Act, if we are to help service providers maintain single-sex spaces and services. It has become increasingly difficult to maintain these services due to the fear of being sued if self-identified 'women' are prevented from using them; i.e. I am referring here to men who say they are women. I am proud to say that almost all the Conservative MPs who spoke had a thorough grasp of the issues, from sport to hospital wards, and I highly recommend you watch the debate or read the Hansard transcript.

Women's groups like Sex Matters, Fair Play for Women, and Conservatives For Women in our own party have been fighting to be heard on these issues.

Well-connected and well-funded lobby groups have been pushing gender identity ideology in every area of our government and in society, in the civil service, in our institutions, in schools, hospitals, sports, the arts, - but these women have been fighting back. I am proud to support them and work with them along with many others. Helen Joyce, now a director of Sex Matters has written a must-read book giving a comprehensive overview of the issues: Trans: Where Ideology meets Reality. I highly recommend it.

Being a woman is one of the things that unites us politically; we are female and we are therefore different from males. This has implications across the board; from healthcare, to education, to political representation to name just three. It doesn't mean we are bound by our biology, it means our biology affects how we operate in the world, from needing menstrual products and maternity services, to needing menopause support and access to HRT. From needing a level playing field in sport so that girls and women can excel, to needing doctors who understand we are not just 'small men'. You may not be aware, for example, that heart attacks present very differently in women than they do in men?

Men and women are different in a myriad of ways, but none of us can deny that the world we live in was built mainly for men, which is why women are 47% more likely to be seriously injured if they are in a car accident. If you have not read Caroline Criado Perez's excellent book 'Invisible Women' exposing all these issues then I recommend you do so. I warn you though, you may need to read it in small doses as it has a tendency to make one grab the nearest person, thrust the book under their nose, and say “Can you believe this?!”

No doubt many of you have read articles in the press about the Tavistock Clinic, the NHS Gender Identity Service for children, and the explosion in the number of girls being referred. In many cases these girls feel they will be happier as boys, yet that is unattainable. Why do they think this? Well I believe porn and social media play big parts in this.

Extreme, violent pornography is available 24/7 via smartphones. I recently wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph supporting age verification in the Online Safety Bill, which resulted in my inbox being absolutely flooded by parents saying “Please keep going”.

Analysis of videos recommended to first-time users on three of the most popular porn sites, Pornhub, Xvideos, and xHamster, found that one in every eight titles described sexual activities that constitutes sexual violence as defined by the WHO. In most cases, that violence is perpetrated against women, and, in those videos, the women respond to that violence either with pleasure or neutrality. Incest was the most frequent form of sexual violence recommended to users. The second most common category recommended was that of physical aggression and sexual assault. This is not the dark web, or some far corner of the internet; these are mainstream porn sites, and they are currently accessed every month by 1.4 million UK children. There is literally nothing at the moment to stop them seeing this horrible, violent stuff.

Anecdotal evidence shows that the 5,000% increase in the number of girls going through puberty now wishing to identify as male is at least partly driven by seeing this vile porn and coming to the conclusion that they would rather not be women if that is what sex involves. To add to your reading list I also recommend Abigail Shrier's book 'Irreversible Damage' which gives a compelling account of how social media, and social contagion, facilitated by smartphones, may be driving this increase. Shrier concludes that far too much of the discourse around being female is negative, and offers a series of steps which parents can take to enhance their daughters' well-being.

We must endeavour to give these girls and young women the belief that being a woman is a positive thing, and that once through puberty, things do begin to look different. We need to be role models but in order to do that we must be able to reclaim our language.

Quite simply, without being able to use the word 'woman', and understand what we mean by it, our needs can be obscured and even ignored, rather than making it clear that that those needs are shared by 51% of the electorate.

A hot topic at every general election is a discussion of the 'women’s vote' as if women are distinct from the 'normal' votes cast. Given that women make up 51 per cent of the UK population and an even greater proportion of eligible voters – and are just as likely to vote as men – the average voter is in fact a woman.

But women do behave differently from men in some ways when it comes to voting. Women are disproportionately represented among undecided voters, and they tend to make up their minds who to vote for closer to election day - but they are just as likely to vote as men. Indeed, if you crunch the numbers women are slightly more likely to vote than men, due to women’s greater longevity combined with higher levels of electoral engagement among our older population. Turnout among women and men of the same age is pretty similar, but the so-called 'grey' vote is much more a female vote than the electorate overall.

So any politician at any level who does not take heed of the particular needs and interests of women is foolish. Women are not 'non-men'.

Yet we now find the word 'woman' is a political hot potato; politicians quail at the thought they might be asked to define it, others tie themselves in knots as they desperately attempt to avoid the question, because being clear on the definition of woman is now considered to be something that must not be said.

How did we get here? How did we find ourselves in such a sorry state of affairs that the Leader of the Opposition tells Andrew Marr that “it’s not right to say” only women have a cervix. And that in fact “it should not be said”. He recently said 99.9% of women don't have a penis which some are seeing as progress!

Well, in some ways it was kindness that brought us here. There is a tiny minority of the population who suffer from crippling gender dysphoria, severe discomfort with their body, that for some can be alleviated by presenting as the opposite sex. The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 created a legal route for people to change their 'gender'. It has a gate-keeping process; applicants must have a medical diagnosis and provide documents that show they have been living in their 'acquired gender' for two years. We will gloss over how one is supposed to 'live as a woman' because I have never seen it expressed other than in the form of stereotypes.

We must be clear at this point that humans cannot change their sex; sex is binary and immutable, but we can change our bodies with hormones and in some cases surgery to more closely resemble the opposite sex. The GRA creates a 'legal fiction' in that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate can be recognised as the opposite sex for some purposes, mainly marriage and pensions, but not all. It certainly does not confer upon men the right to women's spaces, services, sports, and opportunities. It may not surprise you to hear that women who gain a GRC to have the 'legal fiction' of being male cannot inherit peerages for male heirs; the House of Lords clearly know what sex is.

The GRA neatly got around the issue of same-sex marriage which was not legal at the time, as a person who was granted a GRC could apply to have a birth certificate issued in their new 'gender', enabling them to legally enter into a marriage. It was envisaged that this new law would only affect around 5000 to 6000 people; as of June 2021 over 6000 Gender Recognition Certificates have been issued and numbers of applications appear to be rising.

The debates on the bill in 2004, recorded in Hansard, make very interesting reading. Numerous politicians, particularly in the House of Lords, including Lord Norman Tebbit, pointed out that the GRA could have unintended consequences; there were attempts to carve out protections for sport and prisons for example, as it was clearly not a good idea for males to be allowed to play in women's sports, or for fully intact males to be put into female prisons. (There is no requirement for surgery in order to obtain a GRC, nor does a criminal record prevent one from acquiring a GRC).
Almost every objection was waved away and it was passed with very little fanfare and not much notice was taken by the press.

Yet all those things that we were told would never happen, have happened. Over the years, thanks to lobby groups like Stonewall, the words 'woman' and 'female' have been expanded, with no care for how this affects us. Women are no longer 'adult human females', or even gender dysphoric men with a GRC and a new birth certificate. A woman is now anyone who says they are a woman.

When words like ‘woman’ and ‘female’ get expanded to include the male sex it has real life consequences. Newspapers run headlines like:
“Woman found with indecent images of children”.
“Woman exposes herself in public park”.
“Woman accused of rape”.

Readers are misled into thinking increasing numbers of sex offenders are female, when in fact female sex offenders are vanishingly rare. Sex offending is a crime committed almost exclusively by males. We need to be clear about that, because if we are not, then how can we even begin to get to the root of the problem?

When a female rape victim asks for a woman to examine her, she needs to be sure that her request will be respected. If your elderly mum requests only female carers provide her with intimate and personal care, she needs to be sure her request will be respected.

Yet women in these and similar situations, who have objected when confronted with a man who 'identifies' as a woman, have been called bigots and transphobes. A recent document produced by the NHS Confederation said it is the feelings of the medical practitioner that matter more than those of the patient.

Women’s prisons have had male rapists, complete with a penis, interred with female inmates. In March this year, the MoJ announced that men who identify as women will no longer be housed in women's prisons if they have male genitalia or have committed sexual or violent crimes, with exceptions only to be made with ministerial authority. Again, this was down to years of work by women's groups; not a perfect outcome, but a vast improvement. They continue to push for the rule that no men, whatever their crimes, should be in a woman's prison.

When describing sexual assault, we see newspapers write about ‘her erect penis’ and victims aren’t allowed to refer to their assault as ‘male violence’. One woman who was physically assaulted by a man was censured by the judge for failing to call her male attacker 'she', because that was his preferred pronoun. Female prisoners can be punished for 'misgendering' the males in their prison.

In health care, people with male bodies get called for cervical screening by the NHS, but others with female bodies get missed off, because lobby groups have convinced the NHS that we no longer need to keep a record of a person's sex, only their 'gender identity'.

In sport, women and girls are being beaten, and sometimes even injured, by bigger, faster and stronger males in their own sports; women’s sports.

Women are being told to take precautions around lone male police officers while at the same time women are losing access to spaces where males can’t follow. Even Marks and Spencer encourage customers to use the changing room where they 'feel most comfortable'. Yes, that does include the changing room in the women's lingerie department. Voyeurism is a male crime yet many women are completely unaware of the dangers of hidden cameras. If men are not allowed into spaces where we are vulnerable and undressed the danger is mitigated, yet major stores now allow men to go where they please, so terrified are they of offending the lobby groups who push the mantra 'I am who I say I am.'

The Home Secretary has called for the police to take crimes like indecent exposure more seriously yet at the same time any man can be naked in the women’s changing rooms at the local gym, because he might 'identify as transgender'.

Extreme trans activism and gender ideology are breaking down the social norms, the social contract between males and females, where we respect each other’s differences and make room for each other’s needs. It is also creating a safeguarding nightmare. The effect on children is a whole other speech.

The British Pregnancy Advice Service articulated this whole problem very well when they bucked the trend and said “We will continue to use the word 'woman' over 'people' so we can continue to campaign effectively for reproductive rights. If we cannot articulate that it is predominantly women who are affected, rather than people at large, we will find it harder to dismantle a framework that is underpinned by sexism”. This of course ultimately benefits all female people who need their services, including those trans people who do not identify as women.

It was only swift action in the House of Lords that prevented the term 'pregnant person' being incorporated into the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill, otherwise known as the MoMa bill. Almost everybody who spoke from all around the House was clear that the use of the phrases such as “pregnant person” in the Bill was unacceptable. The phrase was replaced with the term “mother or expectant mother”.

When words lose their meaning 'women’s rights' just become 'people’s rights'. Male violence against women just becomes ‘people’s violence against other people’. Boys sexually assaulting girls in school just becomes 'peer on peer violence'.

As you go out knocking on doors this issue will come up, so please do your homework. Parents are concerned about their children, women are concerned about losing their women only spaces, everyone is concerned that their dignity and privacy are being eroded without their consent.
Pressure groups may well ask you to agree with certain statements, so before you get asked to say “transwomen are women” and “transmen are men”, make sure you know what you are signing up to.

It sounds progressive, it sounds kind, it sounds simple, it sounds harmless. I have said it myself. Surely only transphobes and bigots would disagree with those phrases? The fact is they are designed to close down debate. There is a conflict of rights here. Both sides matter and deserve to be heard.

Don't be like Lisa Nandy, who when asked whether a rapist should serve out their sentence in a women’s prison because they now identify as a woman, said “I think transwomen are women and they should be accommodated in a prison of their choosing”.

Don't be like Ed Davey, who when asked whether there should “ever be spaces for women, where biological males should not go?” said “No”. The LibDems are deep into this ideology and we should not let them forget it.

Don't be like David Lammy who said that women who object to these phrases and to the loss of their single-sex spaces are just “dinosaurs hoarding their rights”.

When you say those words you are aligning yourself with a set of beliefs that most voters would find baffling. And, it has consequences. Say “transmen are men”, and you too could find yourself telling Andrew Marr that “it’s not right to say” only women have a cervix. And that “it should not be said”.

Initially the phrase “transwomen are women” was motivated by a kindness to make a few people with gender dysphoria feel better.

It has now become a political demand that transwomen must be considered literally female, indistinguishable from females and that their birth sex must kept a secret, that their male bodies are in fact female bodies. That their penis is a female sex organ.

That demand impacts us all.

Don’t turn your back on women and girls. All the polling shows that it is not just the right thing to do, but the popular thing. Take a look at #Labourlosingwomen if you have any doubts.

Ladies and Gentlemen, until you see it, you don’t see it. But once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

If you have sensitivity and compassion for trans people, please make sure you also have compassion for women and girls too - and join me in the campaign to ensure this matters.”

-----------------------------

Gender ideology is rife across institutions in Norfolk

Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:08:49 GMT

Conservative MPs and councillors need to pay much closer attention

Written by Caroline ffiske, 1 September 2023.

The above tweet from a school in Norfolk a few months ago shocked me. Trans Joy and Gender Euphoria? Imagine a senior leader in a school inviting someone in to expand upon this narrative. What are the essential building blocks that need to be explained to pupils? That we all have an inner gender identity? The trouble is that we don't! That we should be encouraged (it's joyous) to prioritise 'gender identity' over our biological sex? But how can such a narrowing to regressive stereotypes be joyous? That we might want to take cross-sex hormones and contemplate surgery (it's euphoric)? But that will cause us irreversible harm, particularly if starting young! And also there in the bullet points: if a child comes out with a new gender identity, don't tell parents?

What was Norwich School thinking?

Then when another concerning tweet bobbed up from Norfolk I decided to investigate further. A parent shared a form for her child's Education, Health and Care plan. Clearly identified as being from Norfolk County Council, it asks for a child's 'preferred pronoun'. Why? To endorse and promote this harmful ideology?

The outfit visiting the school, NorfolkLGBT+ is a charity that offers training sessions and resources to schools. None of its resources are available for review by parents or the public - a problem in itself. However, the books it recommends to schools gives an indication of the approach.

Books recommended to primary schools normalise the idea of transgenderism as a lifestyle choice. The book below explicitly ' makes being transgender seem like not a big deal at all '. The problem is that it is a big deal. For example, trans-identifying people apparently feel extreme pain if basic reality is refered to - that is a big deal . Such a painful existence should not be blithely promoted to children.

The book "I am Jazz" is included. Here is an extract. "I have a girl brain but a boy body". Sorry, but it is abusive to suggest this idea to children.

NorfolkLGBT+ recommends a book to secondary school children which gives extensive advice on how to live as trans, covering every element of ‘transitioning’. Their recommended booklist has many more titles promoting body disassociation.

NorfolkLGBT+ work with classes from KS1 up (5 year olds) and offers "1:1 support sessions with pupils". Are parents aware of this? The charity works with schools right across Norfolk, presumably promoting and normalising gender ideology and the idea you can be born in the wrong body. This should be of concern to parents and educators and those in child protection roles across Norfolk. We should not be normalising the idea that it is possible to be born in the wrong body - or that it is a positive thing to feel disassociated from your own body.

Depressingly, NorfolkLGBT+ also gives workplace training. Look at all these organisations who have had harmful pseudo-science and ideology explained to them. NHS Trusts of course.

Norfolk County Council also hosts materials that endorse ideology and pseudo-science. See this page about gender pronouns, an extract is below. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so extreme. Because the narrative fully disappears biological sex. It's all just appearances and preferences.

Finally, a Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner endorsed an extraordinary document called Domestic Abuse in Transgender Relationships . Apparently transgender domestic abuse includes 'denial of your gender identity'. So if a woman says to her husband 'sorry my dear but you are not a woman', that statement of elementary and significant truth is 'domestic abuse' in the eyes of the then Norfolk PCC? This is outright harmful to women, scary. Why are people in positions of authority rubber-stamping this nonsense? Please read through the whole document. It is dangerous and alarming - and of course, authored by NorfolkLGBT+.

Norfolk has a preponderance of Conservative MPs, councillors, other elected positions. Gender ideology is pseudo-science that is harming lives and undermining important public norms and institutions. Yet it is being promoted all over Norfolk. More of our elected representatives need to take notice - and challenge its presence in our schools, our health service, and our public institutions.

So...But...I...Rainbow Laces Bev!

Sat, 22 Jul 2023 11:51:05 GMT

Stonewall Chair Comes Unstuck on 'Trans' Issues

Saturday 22 July 2023

On Thursday night, 20th July, many of us who have been raising serious concerns about the so-called 'LGBT' charity Stonewall tuned into Sky News at 9pm to watch an interview conducted by Beth Rigby with Iain Anderson the current Chair of Stonewall. We witnessed what is commonly known as 'car crash TV', where a visibly sweating Anderson was finally asked the difficult questions by a clearly very well informed journalist. This was not before time; Stonewall have frequently been given a very easy ride by journalists, basking in their past achievements, with nobody willing to ask why a previously respected charity is now getting it so wrong.

See our exclusive transcript of the interview below.

Following the interview, Stonewall quickly released a statement :

Stonewall’s Chair, Iain Anderson said: “We remain at the forefront of campaigning for trans people’s rights, and I’m sorry if yesterday’s interview caused concern amongst the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. My priority is fighting for trans people & securing a trans equality strategy that will support the trans community”

So that is clear then; Stonewall is no longer (and has not been for some time) a charity focused on protecting the rights of those who are same-sex attracted, the 'LGB', but is now all about the TQ+.
This needs to be made very clear to all organisations (including government departments) who are signed up to their various schemes to embed their views throughout workplaces, schools and society. It is time for those organisations to start listening to LGB Alliance, who are now the only charity in the UK concerned about the rights of those who are same-sex attracted.

It's long past time that Stonewall, and their #NoDebate mantra, were kicked out, and we don't have to wear rainbow laces to do it.

NB: Since transcription of the original interview, further shocking revelations and unseen footage has been released.

-----------------------------------------

Interviewer questions in Bold, Interviewee in Regular text.

Transcriber Comments : Clear audio. Time codes as per video on Sky News YouTube channel.

KEY: Unable to decipher = (inaudible + timecode), Phonetic spelling = (ph + timecode), Missed word = (? + timecode).

(TC: 00:00:00)

Gender politics, cancel culture, trans rights. Few organisations have found themselves at the centre of those debates more lately than Stonewall. The equality charity’s best known for helping to secure historic changes to the law in the name of gay rights and was championed for it. Today, though, its campaigning, especially on trans issues, is controversial. Internal splits have seen founder members walk away, questioning Stonewall’s new direction and purpose. I’ll be hearing from the chair of Stonewall, Iain Anderson, about what it’s like being caught up in a culture war and ask if he thinks he’s winning. Iain, thank you so much for joining us today. Now, it’s been ten years since same-sex marriage was legalised. Is that the greatest achievement of the gay rights movement and Stonewall, which you now chair?

Iain Anderson: So, I mean, this has been quite a joyous week in many ways. You’re right, ten years since equal marriage, long fought for. Stonewall right in the vanguard of arguing for equal marriage and over a quarter of a million couples have been able to get married since. There’s, I think, another 130,000 that are still in civil partnerships and maybe just very happy to be in exactly that status, but an amazing moment. But no, what are you pointing to is, I think, maybe some of our politicians thought this was the high water mark, all they needed to do. Nothing more to do, nothing more to see. Well, you know, in so many ways my concern is that we may have stalled in terms of LGBTQ progress. It certainly feels like that over the last four or five years.

I want to explore that a bit with you. Let’s start off with Stonewall. Do you accept that many gay men and women who founded Stonewall, who supported it over the years, think the organisation’s gone wrong, Iain? I mean, you say on your website that you stand for lesbian and gay people everywhere, but does that include gay and lesbian people that disagree with you on trans issues?

IA: So Stonewall took a decision to be trans-inclusive. I fully support that decision. It’s taken that decision in a very, very thoughtful way. Now, why? Because we have equalities legislation that protects people and allows them and wants them to be able to thrive. Now, you know, there is discussion about this, you’re absolutely right, but I do see, you know, as a man that grew up-, as a gay man that grew up in the 1980s and early ‘90s, some of the language that’s being used about trans people kind of rather reminds me of some of the language that was being used about people like me at that time. Calling for tolerance here. I’m calling for respect, I’m calling, as chair of Stonewall, to allow people to be able to fulfil their lives and flourish.

And will you talk to those gay and lesbian people, then, Iain, that think you’ve got it wrong? Do you have a conversation with them about it? Why they think that you’ve got it wrong and you don’t think you have.

IA: Yes, so I absolutely do. I talk to lots of people. Stonewall does talk to lots of people where there’s a differing perspective.

But will you-, for example, will you talk to the LBG Alliance? Will you talk to them? Because you’ve just said you think we should have tolerance and discussion. Will you talk to them?

IA: Yes, so I am absolutely up for a conversation for those who wish to see all LGBT people make progress, right? I come back to this: too much of this conversation is taking place on Twitter. So my challenge to the LGB Alliance, my challenge to those that don’t agree with me is, is there an opportunity, Beth, to work, to come together-,

You have to talk to them.

IA: Well, and create. So here’s my offer.

But you have to talk to them. I mean you just said-,

IA: Of course you do.

I’ll talk to people that basically are aligned with how I see it, and that’s not going to-,

IA: I’ve said something slightly different to you today. What I’m saying to you today is Britain needs a strategy for trans people. It needs perhaps a look at where we are with our equalities legislation, there is a debate about that as to whether or not we’re in the right place there. So that is what I’m saying to you today.

I want to just take a concrete example on this to help the viewer understand kind of where we’re getting into, you know, gay rights and trans rights and how they are the same but how they may be different, how some people see they’re different.

IA: Yes.

Do you think it’s a sign of prejudice for a lesbian not to want a sexual relationship with a transwoman, given that being a lesbian is about being attracted to female bodies and most transwomen have intact male bodies?

IA: So I-, you know, I believe people should, in a tolerant society, be able to choose the partner that they want to choose. I’m certainly not suggesting-, I’m not using words that would suggest that people are intolerant if they don’t have that preference.

Okay. The reason I ask you is your CEO, Nancy Kelley, was asked this question about lesbians who don’t wish to date transwomen, many of whom will be, as I said, will have physically male bodies, and she said nobody should ever be pressurised into dating or pressurised into dating people they aren’t attracted to, which is what you’ve essentially just said.

IA: Yes.

But then she went on to say this, Iain, and I’m interested to see what you think of this. She said, “But if you find that when dating you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people, or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudice may have shaped your attraction.” So, you know, I mean, what do you think about that? She’s saying that lesbians who don’t want to date transwomen, many of whom, as we’ve talked about, might have male bodies, may feel that way because of societal prejudices that have shaped their attraction. What does that mean?

IA: So those are not my words. You know, I come back to what I’ve just said to you. Everybody, I think, in this society, has the opportunity to find the love-,

Do you agree with her?

IA: And find the respect that you-, I think in some ways a lot of that’s been taken out of context .

But the reason I ask is she’s your chief executive and I’ve given you the full quote, I haven’t taken it out of any context.

IA: No, no sure. I use my own words, Beth. I use my own words.

So you don’t agree with her.

IA: I use my own words, yes.

Because she was asked directly about this issue that I’ve just put to you and that’s what she said. You don’t agree with her.

IA: I say everybody in a free society should be able to have the partnership that they wish and the loving relationship-,

Was she wrong to say that? Do you think she was wrong to say that?

IA: I think a lot of it’s been taken out of context, as I say.

The reason I ask is that-, well, it’s not out of context, I’ve given you the full quote. But can you see why some lesbian women will have heard that and think, “Stonewall is not for me any more, that you’re basically criticising me for not wanting a relationship with a transwoman. I’m a lesbian.’ Can you see why that-,

IA: I can see why people say that and, again, I’m saying to you that those are not my words.

You don’t think she should have said it.

IA: I-, those are not my words.

Okay. Do you see why it’s a problem for-, because it seems to me you set up Stonewall to protect gay and lesbian people and to further their rights-,

IA: Yes.

And then your CEO’s saying something that if I was a lesbian woman I might think she’s trying to roll back my rights.

IA: Well-,

Or she’s criticising me in some way for not being attracted to transwomen.

IA: What I was saying earlier is I think we’ve got to get to a place where we can have a respectful approach, we can have a real conversation. My offer is that rather than being in this wider feedback group, we need to be able to think about a trans strategy for Britain. I mean-,

But that’s your CEO and you don’t agree with her, do you?

IA: If we go back-,

You don’t want to answer. I get it, you don’t want to publicly disagree with her on it, but you clearly don’t agree with that angle.

IA: I use different words.

Okay. Alright. Well, look, let’s go on to women’s rights, because many people believe, and this is what you’re talking about with the strategy, that trans rights are in opposition to women’s rights, particularly when it comes to women-only spaces. This has been under a lot of public discussion.

IA: Yes.

Given the strength of feeling that many ordinary women have about these issues, do you take them seriously?

IA: So I do. You know, we have legislation here in 2004, a Gender Recognition Act, which allowed people, allows people to change their gender.

Yes.

IA: As I remember, that wasn’t a particularly controversial thing back in 2004. (TC: 00:10:00) We then built on that and we had an Equalities [sic] Act in 2010, which did a whole number of things, including creating safe spaces for women. In fact, this whole conversation has kind of come up again lately in terms of some of the Scottish legislation, in terms of a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Yes.

IA: So we have an established-, we have established law in this country which does allow people to change gender and we’re not talking about-, and the latest census data makes this point. We’re not talking about millions of people. We’re talking about a quarter of a million people that are trans.

Sorry, we do have special exemptions as well for women-only spaces, right? Under the equality legislation.

IA: Exactly that. So there are protections that are in place. Those protections were put in place for a very, very good reason.

Do you support those protections?

IA: So I do support those protections, absolutely. Now, the question is do we-, and this is, I think, where some of the current conversation is, do we need to look at the legislation that’s currently in place? Does it work? I think it does work. And actually, on your point about-, I think where most women are, you know, there was some polling done last year to demonstrate-, I think it’s about-, only about 4% of women that don’t want to support trans rights. So, you know, back to this point, an awful lot of this is a bit megaphoned up at the minute. I think most people are very supportive of equality.

The question is about single-sex spaces, where women can access women-only services. Do you support-, I’m trying to get to whether you support that or not.

IA: Yes.

You do.

IA: So that’s within the Equalities Act. That’s within the 2010 legislation.

The reason why I’m asking you, Iain, is because in 2015 Stonewall wrote to the Women and Equalities Select Committee seeking a review of the Equality Act 2010 to remove exemptions such as access to single-sex spaces. Was that-, that was eight years ago. Have you changed your position since then? Do you now want to maintain single-sex spaces for women in some exemption?

IA: So I think, you know, Stonewall has always said that we build on the 2010 legislation. You know, we’ve been having that debate lately through the debate on the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland.

You did say in 2010 that you wanted to remove the exemptions.

IA: So I think there’s an overall case to come back to this point, Beth, to look at a respectful and a tolerant approach towards trans people and look at the competing rights and look at the competing responsibilities.

So do you back the exemptions or not?

IA: So, I mean, the legislation that’s there in 2010, I think we can build on. I think we can look again. And I think there’s maybe a need for a conversation about that.

So when you said in 2015 to remove exemptions, you think that that was the wrong-, that Stonewall’s position then, now you don’t agree with that.

IA: Well, I wasn’t in the chair at that point.

Okay. So that isn’t your position.

IA: So, I mean, you know, we’ve got established legislation and let’s see if we can build on it.

These exemptions in the Equality Act allow for women-only spaces. Now, for those purposes, Iain, does ‘woman’ mean a biological woman only or a transgender woman as well, under a gender recognition certificate that allows her to be treated as a woman under the law? That’s kind of the nub of it, isn’t it? What’s your view?

IA: So, look, this is the question that politicians are getting right now to, the sort of ‘What’s a woman?’ question. I think we all know what a woman is. I think, as I said as well, though, since 2004, for almost twenty years now, we’ve got legislation that allows someone legally to change their gender, right? So somebody can transition from male to female, from female to male. And they can-,

And they can go in a women-only space in your view?

IA: And they can, yes. Yes.

Right, okay. Okay. So you don’t think that women-only spaces should be in exemptions for biological women only. You think that transgender women who have reassigned-,

IA: Reassigned.

As a woman should be allowed into those spaces.

IA: Yes. But the Equalities Act, the 2010 legislation-,

But they’ve got male bodies.

IA: Does create the ability for institutions, whatever they are, to create the spaces that they want.

But Iain, to be clear, because this, to me, gets to the nub of the discussion here, which is you think that transgender women, who have reassigned as women but might still have male bodies, can be allowed into women-only spaces, be that a women domestic violence refuge, be that a female prison.

IA: Well, I mean, what I-,

Be that a female ward.

IA: I think the practicality of what is happening is that institution by institution they’re making these judgements. But we have legislation that allows people to change their gender, that’s been, as I say, with us for twenty years.

But you-, but just so biological women, you know, hear what you’re saying, you’re saying that you think transgender women should be allowed into women-only spaces, even if they have a male body.

IA: I think that we’ve got legislation which allows people to make a transition. It absolutely does. And, look, we’re talking here about a very, very, very small number of people in society. What I want to do, what I want to try and get is to a place-, is where we can actually, you know, understand that there are some very, very sensitive issues here. People don’t just suddenly wake up one morning and decide that they want to change from male to female or from female to male, and I just feel at the moment an awful lot of this conversation is getting very-, very, very pumped up, very, very megaphoned, and we need tolerance in this conversation.

But, I mean, this matters, because we’re going to have a-, this is a very live issue where the government are deciding about whether to change legislation to make it clear that it’s biological women that are in women-only-, that these exemptions apply to. So it’s a very live issue, this. What do you say to women, biological women, listening to this that just think that they don’t agree, that they feel that they want to go to a women-only space and not have transgender women that might have male bodies in that-, what they would say is a safe space for biological women? What do you-, do you understand the concerns? What do you say to them?

IA: I do, and I think there is-, there’s more of a conversation to be had to try and, you know, to try and calm this, to try and provide reassurance, and I come back to this: there are about, you know, it’s-, 96% of women in Britain, according to the latest polling, are very supportive of trans people the last time that this was looked at.

But they also want women-only spaces. It doesn’t mean they’re-, you can want women-only spaces and be very supportive of trans people. They’re not-, it’s not a zero-sum game.

IA: No, it’s not a zero-sum game. There are competing rights, there are competing interests in this conversation, and what I would like to be able to do is get to a place where we could-, I come back to this, have a strategy for this conversation.

One thing, Iain, though, as well, is you want to make it easier, as well, for people to be able to reassign their gender. Is it still your position that you should be able to do that without a need for extensive counselling and consideration as is the case at the moment?

IA: Yes. So, look, I mean, we’ve always argued that people need support. In fact one of the issues right now is that folks can’t get access to the health support and guidance that they need. I mean, there’s a four- or five-year waiting list for people to be able to get that counselling, to be able to get that support. That’s the kind of thing that we’re arguing for. That’s the kind of thing that we want to see. But no, look, I mean, as I say, I don’t think people sort of wake up in the morning and decide that they want to make a change so fundamental in their life in that way. People need support, (TC: 00:20:00) they need counselling, and also, too, if we look at what goes on in other countries, if we look at what goes on in Canada, what goes on in New Zealand, what goes on in many states in the United States, you know, the ability to get a Gender Recognition Certificate is considerably simpler than it is in this country.

But you sort of-, you’re saying that you want to make it easier and you want people to be able to access Gender Recognition Certificates more easily, but-, and you also say that in women-only spaces, transwomen should be allowed into them. You’re effectively going to make it easier for people to reassign their gender and have access to those spaces.

IA: But these things are not easy to do. I mean, this is the point. They’re not easy to do.

But polling suggests that 60% of the public-, because you talk about-, 60% of Britons versus 17%, 60% think the legal process to reassign gender should continue to require a doctor’s approval. So the public from the polling, they’re not with you on this. It’s not that they have an issue-, as you said, people are very supportive of trans people and trans rights, but they want a process in which this reassignment happens.

IA: I think what people want is for people to be supported and for people to be able to be fulfilled in their lives. Look, we can’t get away from the reality-, so there’s a biological reality, of course there is, but we can’t get away from the reality that there are people who are born who are, you know, not able to fulfil their lives in this way and I want people to be able to be healthy and happy and fulfilled.

Yes, and I don’t think people disagree with that at all. I mean, as you said, people are very supportive of trans people. This is about also protecting other people’s rights and that’s what we’re talking about, isn’t it?

IA: Of course, yes.

I mean, let me look at another issue, if I may? I mean, because this is where we get into the nuts and bolts of all of this. I mean, should a woman, for example, who requires care at home, including intimate care, be able to request and receive care only from a biological woman, for example? Presumably you’d support that.

IA: No, look, all I support is people being able to get care-, back to our earlier conversation as well about the partner that they want. They need to feel-, they need to feel that they’re getting care and support in the way that they want it.

So you think it would be okay for a woman to say, “I need support at home, I need intimate care-,” maybe you need someone to undress you and wash you, “And I want a biological woman to do that.” That’s okay for you. You think that’s okay for people to be able to ask for that and get that.

IA: Everybody needs to feel comfortable with the care and support that they receive. Of course.

Okay. That sounds like a yes to me.

IA: Of course they do.

Okay. I want to come to another issue that-, again, that has been, you know, sometimes more heat than light, and that’s the image of sport.

IA: Yes.

There’s an image we’ve seen a lot of recently, I don’t know if anyone can put it up, but it’s a podium with-, there it is, with a transwoman coming first and biological women coming second and third. Do you think that’s fair, Iain?

IA: So, sport by sport, people are looking at this, they absolutely are. I mean, we’re about to celebrate, this year, ten years of Rainbow Laces, you know, that’s one of the things that Stonewall has been right in the forefront of. So, look, I mean, grass-roots sport I’m absolutely delighted that more and more LGBT folks are getting involved, and visibly getting involved. I think there’s a huge problem still, for example, with the Premier League and men’s sport. But on elite sport, on elite sport, what you’re finding is, sporting body by sporting body, is looking at this issue.

I mean, let me put it another way. How would you feel if you were number two and three in that scenario? Would you think that was fair?

IA: Well, I’m absolutely rubbish at sport.

Don’t dodge-, you know what I mean.

IA: Yes.

How do you think-, how do you think this woman and this woman might feel about that?

IA: Yes, so, I mean, everybody-, we’re working our way through on this. I mean, this is how trans folk take part in elite sport, is something that is very much-,

But this is a problem, isn’t it? Do you see this is a problem?

IA: So I think it’s a problem in terms of the perception of the conversation, but the way in which-,

Don’t you think it’s a problem for these women? In that competition it’s a problem for them, right?

IA: The way in which this debate and the way in which science and medicine and the approach to this is developed is changing all the time and each sporting body is looking at it.

But this is a common sense point. I mean, I think viewers looking at that would think, “Is that fair on these other women?” I mean, do you think that is-, you can see that that’s a problem, no?

IA: I want-, for me, I want everybody to be able to take part in sport. I want everybody to have role models that they can look up to and get excited by. That’s why we do, as I say, our Rainbow Laces.

But does this not make a mockery of competition sport, if biological women are having to compete against a transgender woman who might have a different physiology to them and a different-, does that not make a mockery of competition? How can they compete?

IA: There’s a whole bunch of things that are taking place-, no, I understand-,

It’s a really basic question I’m asking you.

IA: I understand the question you’re asking. I understand the question you’re asking, but are we to say that trans people shouldn’t take part in elite sport? Are we to ban trans people from elite sport? If I can put it the other way round as well, Beth.

That’s a good question and maybe transgender people compete against other transgender people. I mean, I think that’s clear (ph 26.42) debate. But you can see there-, I think that’s hard for those women. I mean, how are they going to compete?

IA: But we want all-, I think we want everybody to be able to play their full part in society. We absolutely do. And, you know, that’s where I’m coming from.

Okay. You’re talking about tolerance and inclusivity and not judging people or cancelling people because they are different, right? And different people have different views. You seem to-, you’re saying to me, I think, that you want a more open conversation. With that in mind, you’ll have seen and heard some of the abusive language from the trans community towards people like JK Rowling and those that they call TERFs, trans-exclusionary radical feminists, that’s the acronym. Would you like to take this opportunity, then, to sort of send a message to those people, to back off, to lower-, you know, as a leader in this space, to back off and lower the temperature, so that it doesn’t become this kind of battle in the way it has been and quite abusive battle?

IA: We need to lower the temperature on all sides of this, wherever you sit on this. We need to lower the temperature and that’s why I’ve said to you today, I think-, and I’ve called for-, we need a strategy for this as opposed to megaphone diplomacy. That’s what I really hope for. That’s what I hope we can do in the months ahead and maybe through the election period ahead, this may feature through the election period. I want us all to have a respectful conversation, but the thing for me is I want my community to be able to fulfil and-, fulfil the opportunities that are available to it. That’s the thing that guides me in all of this.

Well, Iain, thank you, and I personally-, it was great to have some space to actually go through the issues in a way that isn’t a megaphone moment. Thank you so much for joining us.

IA: Thank you.

Well, plenty to think about from that conversation with Stonewall chair Iain Anderson. Now, if you scan the QR code on the left of your screen you’ll be able to watch all of our previous episodes online. And if you scan the QR code on your screen right now, you can listen to the Beth Rigby Interviews… podcast. Each week I take a look at the highlights of my interviews and there’s some extra bits and pieces in there too. That’s on the Sky News app or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, that’s all for this week and for this series. We’re now off for summer recess. Thank you so much for watching and enjoy the sun.

Local Authority Education Portfolio Holder Letter - Single-sex toilets in schools

Tue, 16 May 2023 17:58:40 GMT

Sample letter for inspiration

Dear Education Portfolio Holder,

Conservatives for Women is a grassroots campaigning organisation with over 1000 members, a third of whom are party members. We campaign within the public sphere, and in the heart of Westminster, to raise awareness of issues which threaten the safety and dignity of women. We are writing to you now in your role as the Education Portfolio holder for your Local Authority.

We at Conservatives for Women are hearing a lot of reports of girls around the country not using lavatories at their secondary-schools, as these have become mixed-sex or the school is allowing boys who self-identify as girls to use the girls' single-sex facilities. This is leading to an alarming increase in urinary tract infections among adolescent girls who are not drinking during the day because they are afraid to use lavatories where boys may be lurking ready to photograph or abuse them. This is a particular concern for girls who have just started menstruating as failure to change sanitary products regularly can increase the risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome.

Schools are increasing introducing mixed-sex facilities because they mistakenly believe that the Equality Act 2010 requires them to do so to protect any 'trans' pupils. However, in this case, schools are in fact in breach of the Equality Act because they are discriminating against girls. In effect, they are prioritising one protected characteristic over another. For further clarification, please see this useful factsheet from Safe Schools Alliance.

Could you please look into whether any schools that you oversee in your role as the Education Portfolio Holder in your Local Authority have introduced mixed-sex toilets (including allowing students to 'self-identify' into whatever toilet they like), and if so take action to reintroduce single sex facilities. We would also be grateful if you could keep us updated on your findings and actions, and we would be pleased to support you in any subsequent discussions with schools or other stakeholders. Please do not hesitate to contact us on info@conservativesforwomen.org .

Kind regards

Feeling Like A Woman

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:54:23 GMT

I am left wondering...

The mantra of the gender identity theorists is that if a man feels like a woman he is a woman. I find

this is very confusing position. You see I am a woman. But I can state categorically that I have no idea

what feeling like a woman means.

And if I, as a woman, don’t know what 'feeling like a woman' is, how can a man?

I’d love to ask a few of the trans activists but given they subscribe to no debate they probably won’t

tell me. And so I am left wondering.

Looking at the propaganda materials they hand out in schools, I have a nasty feeling that 'feeling like

a woman' has something to do with wanting to dress in girly clothes and high heels, have long

flowing locks and a face smothered in make-up. In other words they want to dress like a dandy from

the 18 th Century or a New Romantic from the last years of the 20 th . Of course they were men and no

one has ever suggested dandies or New Romantics ever thought they were women.

The only other people that dressed that way were an idealized form of female from the 1950s –

those submissive ladies who existed before the contraceptive pill gave women power over their

own bodies, the second wave feminists fought for equal opportunities for all humans and male

supremacy got a kick in the teeth.

Since then women have been able to take on senior jobs, control their own money and own their

own property. Golly, we don’t even need to ask our hubbies' permission to have a bank account

anymore! Could this be what’s behind all this nonsense? Do these men who feel like a woman

hanker after being looked after and treated like children just like the women in that idealized 50s

past? Or is this really about forcing that definition of womanhood on all of us and in that way drive

us back into the kitchen and well away from the boardroom?

I wonder…..

Conservative Education Ministers should treat gender ideology as a 'belief system'

Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:27:24 GMT

Then balance gender ideology alongside other beliefs, including opposition to it.

Written by Caroline ffiske, 1 February 2023.

Parents and teachers across the country are waiting for the Department for Education to publish its draft sex and gender guidance for schools, for public review and consultation.

There have been too many instances of school children taught they could be born in the wrong body; too many organisations publishing curriculum material explaining we all have an ‘inner gender identity’; too many schools buy into these ideas and proactively promote them to children.

One example - in its transgender policy the White Horse Federation of Schools outlines its belief in something like a gendered soul: an ‘individual … may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a girl’.

This one example, which also suggests it is legitimate for a boy to undress in the girls’ changing rooms, and if a girl doesn’t like it, she should be moved, makes clear why guidance from the DfE is needed. How is it possible for a boy, aside from his body, to be ‘in every other respect a girl’?

Last week in the House of Lords, peers engaged Schools Minister, Baroness Barran, on this subject. Lord Farmer asked her for an update on the timing of the draft guidance. Baroness Barran recommitted to previous statements, and remained elusive on timing, but her language provided an indication of what we might expect from the impending draft guidance. Baroness Barran said ‘we are developing guidance to support schools in relations to transgender pupils ’ and ‘ The guidance to support schools in relation to transgender pupils will set out schools’ legal duties ’.

The indication is that Baroness Barran seems to believe there is such a thing as a ‘transgender child’. This implies that the DfE is also likely to affirm the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘transgender child’.

This is worrying because we know that affirming a child as transgender is not a neutral act. To borrow words from the White Horse Federation of Schools, it seems to indicate that Baroness Barran, Conservative Schools Ministers, relevant officials at the Department for Education, believe something along the lines that ‘ although the individual in question may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a girl ’. How does this work? Do Conservative Education Ministers believe in a gendered soul? Do they think there is an, as yet unidentified, locus in the brain, where sits our gender identity? This seems to ignore the now widespread understanding that there is a very significant social and social media trend promoting gender ideology. Even transgender health organisations acknowledge the role of social contagion . Fashion brand, Burberry, inexcusably, promotes double mastectomies and its scarring, as cool / fashionable. Stonewall, even BBC Bitesize, have promoted whole arrays of neo-identities to school children - the BBC at one point claiming there were over a hundred of them.

So in an environment of social contagion and fashionable exploration and identification - who are the real transgender children and how can we be sure? The tiny group with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? Evidence already shows that the vast majority will desist. Affirmation sidesteps safeguarding, a primary duty of schools and all adults involved in education. At what point should challenge come? Before chemical castration?

If you look at reports from a decade ago that concerned the treatment of trans-identifying adults or gender-dysphoric children, no-one said these adults and children actually were the opposite sex . The discussion around the passing of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 referred to transexuals - people who wanted to appear and present as the opposite sex.

So how should the DfE navigate this complex issue in its forthcoming guidance? Surely the neutral starting position is for the DfE to speak of ‘gender identity’ as a belief system. Some individuals believe in an inner 'gender identity' independent from biological sex. Many of us do not subscribe to this belief system and think it is immensely harmful.

The neutral starting position for the DfE is therefore to stand back from the belief system, not buy into it. Same for Conservative Ministers and government. Then to consider the appropriate accommodation of the belief system within a school setting. It becomes self-evident that, at most, it needs to sit in a balanced way alongside other belief systems, including that of strong opposition to gender ideology . Indeed, you could argue that whenever 'gender identity' is discussed in schools, the 'gender critical' position should be presented alongside.

The only possible approach is that of respecting a diversity of viewpoints and belief systems - alongside tolerance, free speech, and freedom of conscience. Teaching must remain anchored in science. The wider moral and discursive aspects of a school’s remit can engage openly, tolerantly, questioningly, with the world’s competing belief systems. New beliefs unanchored in science cannot be presented as 'true'. Safeguarding must be prioritised, particularly for children who do buy into gender ideology.

Once you simply recognise gender ideology as a new belief system, unanchored from science, popular on tiktok and with teens, but not with the wider public; and then stand outside it, working out how to accommodate it within the school system becomes so much easier. This is what Conservative education ministers and the DfE need to do.

Ding Dong the Bill is Dead (well, for now, at least)

Wed, 18 Jan 2023 12:33:07 GMT

Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill.

Written by Jeannette Towey, 18 January 2023

On Monday 16th January 2023 the Rt Hon Alistair Jack MP, Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he would use Section 35 to block the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill.

In his statement he cites his concerns that the legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation but also allows for the Scottish Government to revisit the bill in such a way that it would not have that impact. Michael Foran, a Lecturer in Public Law at Glasgow University has written an excellent report for Policy Exchange on the issues for GB legislation presented by this bill. His synopsis of the report can be found on Unherd.

It is clear from this that the government is approaching this matter overwhelmingly from a constitutional point of view. Indeed, the fact that the Scottish Secretary is taking the lead is indicative of this. There are strong political reasons for doing this. It puts the Labour Party on the spot as Section 35 is in part of their own legislation introduced under Tony Blair. It also only makes sense if the government believes that Nicola Sturgeon has rushed through this legislation precisely to force a constitutional confrontation, a view supported by the First Minister’s own response to the news and the commentariat’s discussions of it.

Many of us are not convinced however. Sturgeon’s comments over the years have led the gender critical among us to believe that she has signed up completely to gender ideology, either as a useful fool or a malicious collaborator. Let us hope that Mr Jack’s offer to work with the Scottish Government to find a way through this does not come back to haunt us.

Now taxpayers fund LSE 'research' into gender critical women

Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:35:17 GMT

Why didn't they just invite us in to talk?

Written by Caroline ffiske, 09 December 2022

Taxpayers are paying for the London School of Economic’s Gender Studies Department to research the activities of women who are fighting back against gender ideology. A Freedom of Information request reveals that taxpayers are paying £35,000 for an LSE project to examine the language used by gender critical women’s groups who are fighting to protect women’s identity, language, and sex-based rights.

The Arts and Humanities Research Council, which is wholly funded by taxpayers via the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, is providing taxpayer’s money to fund a project called “Transnational 'Anti-Gender' Movements and Resistance: Narratives and Interventions”.

The project, led by two professors at the LSE, will ‘ map the narrative building blocks – the political grammars, conceptual vocabularies, rhetoric, figures, and temporalities – of both ‘anti-gender ideology’ interventions and the political struggles and solidarities engendered in resistance ’

While the LSE project team casts the gender-critical movement as that ultimate bogey ‘right-wing’, it recognises that there is also a problem within feminism. Some pesky feminists insist upon the ‘integrity of sex’. Imagine that? “Within feminism, too, 'anti-gender' work insists on the integrity of 'sex', both as the unique site of sexual oppression of women, and as a unique position from which to challenge sexual violence and its representations. In this context, trans* claims to integrity are dismissed, and critiques of sexual essentialism from within decolonial feminism remain unacknowledged.”

The project will bring together ‘ scholars, activists and policy-makers ’ from different parts of the globe to ‘ contend seriously with ‘anti-gender ideology’ and its counter-narratives ’.

A tip for the project team. It didn’t need £35,000 of taxpayers’ cash to research the gender critical movement. That money should have gone to fund library books for schools in deprived areas. The team could, instead, have invited women in for tea, talk, and tunnocks teacakes. We would be happy to explain the language we use and our reasons for doing so.

This project is an extraordinary illustration of where 'no debate' leads. Competing teams 'researching each other' across an impassable divide? Funded by the taxpayer? Is this the future we want?

There is another reason the taxpayer didn’t need to cough up £35,000. The work of the LSE project team has already been done. As revealed by The Telegraph recently, the HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) diversity and inclusion team has already dones its work. It has written a document outlining the ‘coded language’ of the gender critical movement. This document was emailed to all staff in the Prison and Probation Service so that they know what passes for transphobia these days and can be sure to avoid it. Never mind that gender critical views are protected in the workplace - or that 99% of the population know that sex is real, and matters.

The HMPPS document is called ‘Annex B: Recognising transphobic coded language’. It says ‘i t is important to recognise these words and phrases, understand their context and educate those you hear using them about the reasons why their use can be deemed offensive or upsetting …’ After all ‘ the importance of challenging their use cannot be overstated ’.

What are the transphobic words that should not be used by fair-minded human beings?

‘Actual / real woman’ - because this is used to convey the idea that men aren’t women.

‘Adult human female’ - this is transphobic when used to describe women.

‘Erasure of women and girls’ - this is transphobic because it is possible to live without words that describe women and girls. You don’t need to use the word ‘mother’ when you can say parent.

‘Biological woman’ - this might seem to be a phrase kindly meant; after all, it actually implies that the user acknowledges there is another type of woman. Wrong. This is transphobic because language must be dictated and controlled - the approved term here is ‘cis’.

‘Protect women’s spaces’ - this is transphobic because you shouldn’t try to protect women’s spaces.

‘Sex is real / immutable’ - this is transphobic because ‘nobody is claiming that sex isn’t real’. Well, shouldn’t that mean that you can say it? No. See - you can’t win.

Following the exposure of the HMPPS document, gender critical lawyers have described it as harassment .

Via a parliamentary question from Joanna Cherry, Damian Hinds, Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation, has assured us that it 'does not constitute official advice' and 'the department is looking again at how communications are done.’ Baroness Nicholson has also written to Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, describing the HMPPS email and its content as insidious bullying. She says ‘I look forward to hearing how you will tackle what is effectively subversion’. So do we all.

But back to the LSE Gender Studies report. The HMPPS document is clear and comprehensive - surely it short-circuits the need for further work? The ‘ political grammars, conceptual vocabularies, rhetoric, figures, and temporalities ’ of the gender critical movement have been documented and explained. If there are gaps, some of us would be delighted to visit LSE Gender Studies for tea, talk, and teacakes.

The serious issues here? So many. The ludicrous waste of taxpayer's money. The funding criteria used by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I would like to see it challenged as to how it can justify this use of public money. But most of all, the sorry state of 'no debate' and where it leads. LSE Gender Studies should now do the right thing and give the £35,000 to buy library books for schools in deprived areas. Then put the kettle on and invite us in.

Stonewall 2023 - has anything changed?

Thu, 03 Nov 2022 11:50:12 GMT

Yes - Stonewall's ideological incoherence and its demands for corporate compliance continue to get worse.

Written by Caroline ffiske, 03 November 2022

Via a Freedom of Information Act request we have obtained Stonewall's 'Workplace Equality Index' for 2023. This captures in one place, the ideology Stonewall promotes, and the compliance it requires, from many of the largest employers in this country: corporates, charities, universities, and public bodies. It is the best benchmark to judge how Stonewall has responded to the widepread public scrutiny it has received of late.

For the Workplace Equality Index, Stonewall requires participants to submit documents and provide evidence across 32 pages of detailed criteria. It then judges and ranks them and provides them with feedback on their 'compliance'.

So what does the Stonewall 'WEI 2023' show? Is Stonewall still pushing ideological concepts into our major workplaces which have no basis in science, reason, or public acceptance? Yes. Is it still promoting ideology which threatens women's rights? Yes. Is it continuing to over-ride our established language, and pressure workplaces into accepting new words, new usages, new practices, and new concepts which have zero basis in public acceptance or democratic legitimacy? Yes. And much more.

Is it wrong that in promoting its ideology, Stonewall should have such widespread access to the HR departments and boardrooms of most of the major workplaces in this country? We think so.

Let's look at examples of what Stonewall promotes and pressurises our workplaces to accept.

First up. A requirement to recognise, in corporate policies , the neologism of 'gender identity' - a concept that has no basis in science, no clear or agreed definition, and no validation via the Equality Act.

Stonewall wants an explicit commitment from corporations, universities, charities, and public sector bodies that they will allow men to use the women's toilets, if the women's toilets align with their 'lived gender'.

Stonewall wants our workplaces to allow men to cross-dress at work.

Stonewall asks employers to use gender-neutral language, including in their maternity policies. This isn't possible without over-riding existing language usage, promoting ideology, undermining science, and erasing women and our language and experience.

Stonewall at least pushes for the provision of gender-neutral facilities. But it would be nice to see alongside this, an expectation that once these are in place, the women's facilities can go back to being single sex:

Stonewall wants major corporations to allow 'non-binary' employees to have their identities recognised.

In fact, Stonewall suggests that employers allow employees to have multiple passcards which present different identities on different days . Presumably colleagues will need to carefully scrutinise each other's passcards before saying good-morning.

Stonewall even wants employees to be able to have more than one email account so that they can work as different identities on different days. If you accidently send an email to Harry on the day that he is Sally will that constitute a non-crime-hate-incident? And when emails are auto-forwarded between the two accounts, won't it be triggering for Harry to read 'good morning Sally' on the day that he is Harry? How will Harry manage email chains involving both Harry and Sally? Should the use of names in workplaces be banned to overcome these problems?

Effectively Stonewall is suggesting that people should be able to go to work as ' completely different people ' on different days - and for everyone and all systems to be able to seamlessly manage that. (Should Harry and Sally job-share?)

Note that Stonewall also suggests that gender markers could be removed from work-place systems altogether. T his means removing the identification of biological sex from workplace systems. We're all un-sexed now. How did we get to here?

Stonewall wants us all to spend a lot of time in training - including training in how to overcome the Harry/Sally problems identified above. Literally, how? Please share.

Last year Stonewall asked corporations to mark IDAHOT day. This year that may constitute a non-crime-hate-incident. Stonewall would now like corporations to mark IDAHOBLIT. (Pronounced Idahoblit). This is the recently-invented but long-established International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Lesbophobia and Transphobia. References to IDAHOT indicate a lack of commitment to keeping up (obeying).

Intersectionality takes on ever new dimensions. If you don't know the meaning of Ace or Aro Spectrum report yourself to HR.

There is no escape. Working from home will not provide respite:

Non-bi employees need support to become bi-allies. That includes you, lesbians and gays! Information booklets, programmes, and training are needed. (Budgets, time, resources....)

99.9% of the population are referred to by the offensive neologism 'cis' - and we all must train to be come trans-allies.

There really can be no escape - either by working from home or setting up on your own. Stonewall would like major corporations to also engage with their suppliers on their adherence to its ideology. Stonewall even suggests that otherwise competent suppliers - hard-pressed small businesses? - not be awarded contracts if they do not comply with Stonewall law.

The supplier can't be left alone once they've got the contract:

Perhaps what is most depressing is that the above is but a snapshot. The full document is available upon request.

The ideology that Stonewall promotes, the compliance that Stonewall requires, is incoherent and unanchored from science, reason, public awareness, public acceptance - and any remaining shred of proportionality. Stonewall undermines science. It ignores reason. It steamrollers women's rights. It over-rides established languages. It literally invents stuff... Aro, ace, IDOHOBLIT. Then passes it off as long-established and [insert]-phobic, if ignored. Incoherent while also bullying.

It's a national embarressment that most of our major corporations, charities, universities, and public bodies continue to go along with all this. Use taxpayer or shareholder funds to pay for it. When people are struggling. The full list of Stonewall Diversity Champions can be found here . Diversity Champions? What a misnomer.

***

Conservative for Women is committed to campaigning for science, reason, free speech, a respect for women's rights, and children's safeguarding, in public policy and the public realm. If you like what we do, please make a donation, no matter how small, via the Paypal link at the base of this page so that we can keep going. Thank you!

Proposed new guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service promotes more gender ideology

Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:00:35 GMT

It encroaches on established language, existing law, even our most private intimate relationships

Written by Caroline ffiske, 1 October 2022

The Crown Prosecution Service has launched a public consultation on proposed new guidance regarding the treatment of ‘deception as to sex’ in rape and serious sexual assault cases. (Confusingly, it uses the term ‘gender’ throughout.)

The proposed guidance illustrates the impact of the Government allowing gender ideology to embed across our public institutions. Organisations cross-quote and reference each other, building up a false impression of government sign-off and democratic legitimacy to gender ideology.
It illustrates a dangerous new trend whereby organisations captured by gender ideology are reinterpreting the use of the word 'gender' to mean, not sex, but 'gender identity' - a push, which if successful, will impact the meaning of whole swathes of government activity, law, and regulation.
It illustrates how captured the CPS remains by gender ideology, despite the departure of Stonewall - and despite the recent debacle whereby it withdrew another document - aimed at schools and full of gender ideology - rather than try to publicly defend it.
Finally, the draft CPS guidance suggests that if a person misrepresents their sex in close sexual relationships - something that most of us would regard as a gross violation - they should be able to argue that their self-defined ‘gender identity’ potentially means they did not engage in misrepresentation. This seems to potentially legitimise violations of the deepest personal boundaries.

The proposed “CPS legal guidance on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO), Chapter 6 - Consent” can be found here . The 12-week consultation began on 26 September and runs through to 19 December.

Individuals and organisations concerned should respond to the consultation . Conservative Ministers and parliamentarians who care about science, truth, democratic legitimacy, and now even sexual autonomy and consent , must step up to take a much more vigorous approach to addressing the capture of our public institutions by gender ideology.

The entrenching of gender ideology across institutions

The proposed CPS guidance makes an extraordinary claim about the UK government’s definition of ‘sex’. It claims that the government regards it as having been ‘assigned at birth’. That it is ‘generally male or female’.

We all know that these two statements are scientifically indefensible. The CPS takes them from an incoherent document about sex and gender on the website of the Office of National Statistics. No source is given for these supposed government definitions.

The CPS guidance makes an equally extraordinary claim about the UK government’s definition of gender:

This is also taken from the ONS and has no original source. Yet the CPS passes it off as a ‘government definition’.

The CPS also references the Equal Treatment Benchbook and its treatment of gender ideology. This has come in for sustained criticism from people concerned about the spread of gender ideology across public life. One example alone will suffice. The ETBB presents a fantasy about the possibility of successful childhood transition so that a boy might live out his life as a ‘wife’ and ‘mother’ to the very point that the label ‘trans’ has become offensive: “For example, if they transitioned as a child and have spent their adult life as a wife and mother, they may feel treated as inauthentic if referred to as trans against their will during a hearing”. (Page 327) This creates a dangerous fantasy - this ‘mother’ will inhabit a male-sexed body every day of their life; they will be a life-long medical patient with as yet poorly understood health consequences as their male body wrestles with female hormones; yet the ETBB promotes an irresponsible and ideological fantasy that they have simply become a woman.

The layering and cross-referencing of these ideas across public institutions creates a false legitimacy, cements in place ideology. It is not acceptable that the Government has let this ideological material sit unchallenged, undermining science, distorting reality, ultimately harming the safeguarding of the vulnerable and threatening women’s rights. Yes, some of these organisations are arms-length, quangos. But the role of our democratically elected representatives is to work where and how they can to retain democratic legitimacy (and science, truth, reason) in all of our public institutions.

[ UPDATE: Since the publication of this article, the CPS has removed these 'UK Government’s definitions of “sex” and “gender” ' in an open admission that they ' do not reflect a current cross-government agreed position '. Well... Should the consultation now be withdrawn in the light of this update and confusion?]

Changing the meaning of the term 'gender'

As above, the CPS guidance made an extraordinary claim about the UK government’s definition of gender: 'where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender - where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman'.

Not so very long ago this incoherent formulation might have been given as a definition of ‘gender identity’.

That it is now given as a definition of ‘gender’ is a deliberate attempt to change the meaning of language. Right across society, for decades, in all sorts of circumstances, the term ‘gender’ has been used to mean ‘sex’. This attempted linguistic shift implies that in all those circumstances, across institutions, across legal and regulatory documentation, across all kinds of guidance, analysis, and policy, when we originally said ‘gender’ meaning ‘sex’, we actually said ‘gender’ meaning ‘gender identity’. This has enormous implications - it is pursuing the erasure of the importance of sex in how we organise public life. And it implies that this irrelevance of sex was always so. Thereby: public debate avoided, implications not aired, consent not given.

Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.

The capture of the CPS by gender ideology.

Aside from all of the above, the draft guidance is full of all the neo-concepts and pseudo-science that is regularly rolled out by Stonewall and like-minded entities:

The above definition of ‘trans’ as used by the CPS appears to come from Stonewall :

The Crown Prosecution Service has left Stonewall’s Diversity Championship Scheme but Stonewall does not seem to have left the CPS.

The CPS is the organisation that produced the ‘LGBT+ Hate Crime and Bullying Guidance’ for schools that it literally withdrew rather than attempt to defend in the public realm .

Amongst many other things, the CPS and the adult male authors of this document tried to bully schoolgirls about who they are friends with. According to the CPS, “LGBT+ hate incidents” - over which they made clear the police take a keen interest - include the following:

I know parents whose girls have been subjected to sustained pressure from boys, claiming to be trans. The boys have later apologised - it was a fad. The CPS wanted the girls to know that they were transphobic for maintaining their boundaries.

The CPS also tried to make school children worry about their own thoughts. Again, having made clear that the police take a keen interest in transphobia (it's a non-crime hate-incident):

Imagine being a school kid, a child, secretly sure that a man can’t really become a woman - and then feeling fearful because a trusted adult in a position of authority has told them their own thoughts are hateful.

As above, upon a legal challenge supported by Safe Schools Alliance , the CPS withdrew this document rather than defend it. Please read it here .

Sexual Consent and Deception

The CPS proposed guidance around the treatment of sexual consent and deception lays out what I imagine is a well-established three step process which makes eminent sense:

But here is the extraordinary suggestion from the CPS:

I think the CPS is genuinely suggesting that someone should be allowed to argue ( to pretend ) that they thought their own biological sex was not of relevance to a sexual partner.

There is this:

In a crowded gay-bar a young man becomes involved with a trans-identifying female who has been taking testosterone and passes, in a dark bar after a few drinks, as a male? A drunk straight man becomes flirtatious with a trans-identifying male who has had feminising face surgery?

The CPS seems to be seriously suggesting that grown adults engaged in sexual activity should be able to legitimately argue that they were unaware that a potential partner might care about their sex ?

I tend to think women are not so easily fooled, hence the male-focused examples above. But lesbian women report how on dating sites or in gay venues they are pressurised by men claiming to be ‘lesbians’ into accepting those men as potential sexual partners. As if sex doesn’t matter. Indefensible boundary-violation from these individual men. The Crown Prosecution Service seems to be legitimising the stance of these men .

I hope lawyers with detailed knowledge of this area of law will have a close look at this guidance and make public comment well before the consultation closes.

***

Gender ideology has long sought to transgress and disturb human interactions in the public realm, suggesting women should accept trans-identifying men in their spaces and services and sports.

Now it seeks to transgress and violate our most intimate private boundaries. Some people call this rape culture - the soft-focus be-kind legitimisation of transgression and violation. Please tell the Crown Prosecution Service what you think, via the consultation linked to above.

The Conservative Government has let this transgressive ideology sweep across our public institutions. If our public representatives care about the anchoring of our society in science, truth, and reason; and protecting all of us, but particularly women and children from, violation and transgression in both the public and private realms, they must make a stand. Gender ideology must be rooted out of our public institutions. Given its key role in our justice system, the Crown Prosecution Service would be a good place to start.

Penny Mordaunt helped push gender ideology across our institutions

Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:06:09 GMT

The subsequent battle for science, sanity, and women's rights has consumed untold resources

By Caroline ffiske 15 July 2022

When she was Minister for Women and Equalities, overseeing the Government Equalities Office during 2018 and 2019, Penny Mordaunt presided over an organisation captured by gender ideology. The output of the GEO under her watch spread gender ideology across public institutions. In doing so it undermined science, free speech, established language, women's rights, and the safeguarding of the vulnerable. The fightback from grassroots women has since consumed untold energy.

This document illustratres this. Much more work must be done to understand how an unscientific harmful ideology completely took over an institution that was supposed to protect women's rights. Many women seek a Government Enquiry into this matter - perhaps the next Conservative Prime Minister could commit to this.

To get underway, it's worth looking back to 2016 to see that the Government Equality Office was not then completely captured by gender ideology. A 2016 report , commissioned by the GEO continued to recognise a distinction, and a difference in interest, between "LGB" and the "T". Extract below.

This 2016 Report continued to sometimes refer to LGB people 'ungrouped' from trans-identifying individuals, a practice that would cease altogether in later years.

But by July 2018, and with Penny Mordaunt in charge, gender ideology seemed to hold full sway at the GEO. Mordaunt was either entirely complicit - or singularly failed to challenge the normalisation of concepts with no backing in science, emanating from 'queer theory' and social media. This is illustrated by the GEO-commissioned National LGBT Survey .

This 2018 report is significant for its consistent unquestioning normalisation of gender ideology. The concept of 'gender identity' which barely existed a few short years ago is presented in unquestioning fashion. New gender identities such as 'asexual', 'pansexual', 'non-binary' and 'gender-queer' make their appearance in a government report:

Despite the open recognition that the LGBT survey suffered from methodology problems, it was used as the precursor for the launch of an LGBT Action Plan that pushed gender ideology across the state sector.

The GEO report normalised the concept of 'cisgender' thereby also normalising the opposite concept of bodily disassocation. Within the report it is defined as follows: " ‘cisgender’ is used throughout the more detailed report as an umbrella term for respondents who identified exclusively as men and women where this was consistent with their sex as assigned at birth ". The use here of sex being 'assigned at birth' is an incompetent unscientific neo-concept. It implies that biological sex is not real. You have to assume that Penny Mordaunt bought into this undermining of elementary science and the promotion of incoherent unscientific ideology.

The following paragraph should surely have given a competent Minister pause. Was the survey hijacked by young people caught up in gender ideology? Should this ideology then have been seemingly so unquestioningly affirmed by a government Ministry and Minister?

Penny Mordaunt nodded through a bar graph about asexuals, pan-sexuals, and non-binary people. I wonder how many of these identifications were fleeting fads for the individuals concerned. It wouldn't matter but for the policy decisions that were to come out of it.

The survey report normalises young lesbian women referring to themselves as heterosexuals. This person had previously talked about their wife. Nowhere does the survey report flag up concerns.

The survey report captures a sad picture of young women 'transitioning' to identity as trans men. Yet this is presented as business as usual, no concerns.

It is what followed this 2018 LGBT survey that changed the direction of British politics. Under Penny Mordaunt, the GEO pushed gender ideology across key institutions. Practically everything that women have since spent untold resources fighting - in order to protect science, free speech, women's rights, and the safeguarding of the vulnerable - can be traced to the LGBT Action Plan that Mordaunt signed off as a follow-up to the 2018 survey.

The July 2018 LGBT Action Plan was signed off with a flourish by Mordaunt:

As with the LGBT Survey, the Action Plan normalised the concept of 'gender identity' as part of government policy and our national conversation. This is despite this having no grounding in science and being a neologism 99% of us had not heard of ten years ago. It's an ideological concept that effectively has the purpose of over-riding the concept of biological sex as a key determinant in how we live and orientate around one another.

The NHS and women's right to single sex accomodation

The first substantive policy commitment in the LGBT Action Plan relates to Health. Mordaunt commits to the engagement of a NHS LGBT Advisor:

By September 2019, women's right to single sex accomodation in NHS hospitals had been over-ridden. An extraordinary NHS document ' Annex B ' prioritises the wishes of self-identifying 'trans' individuals in almost all circumstances.

The following paragraph about non-binary people exemplifies the utterly cavalier approach to respecting existing legislation and norms; and women's rights, privacy and dignity. There is no mechanism for a person to be identified as 'non-binary' apart from simple self-declaration. So here we have the mechanism whereby the NHS waved through any man being able to self-identify into women's spaces. There is no record of there having been a consultation - were any women's groups consulted? What about the application of the Equality Act? How and why were the potential concerns of women so ignored?

Women have been fighting ever since to have their voices heard on this matter and to have Annex B reviewed. To date, no movement. Sajid Javid expressed concerns but they didn't go anywhere.

The exponential increase in the number of girls self-identifying as men

The LGBT Action Plan raises this issue in a rather cavalier fashion. In fact it refers to young women as 'people assigned female at birth'. Here is a thing: I searched for the word 'women' in the LGBT Action Plan. Apart from its use for offices and titles it is only used to refer to men . How did the term 'people assigned female at birth' make it into a government document?

This commitment to gather evidence about so many young women identifying as trans made it into a Times article in September 2018. Even in the GEO statement in the Times article, the scale of ideological capture is evident: "Last night a source at the Government Equalities Office said: “There has been a substantial increase in the number of individuals assigned female at birth being referred to the NHS." Had the GEO already banned the word 'woman'? After that nothing happened - there was no enquiry . By February 2020 the GEO were even refusing to say what was or was not happening , turning down an FOI request that I made. I'm not sure how Mordaunt can now claim this ongoing non-event as evidence of her concern.

Education

Up and down the country, children are being introduced to the idea that they might have been born in the wrong body, or that they have a gender identity they might want to prioritise over their sex. To find this gender identity they should refer to vacuous gender stereotypes. Unsurprisingly, the number of young people claiming a neo- gender identity continues to rise. This trend was fast-tracked by Mordaunt's LGBT Action Plan.

First was the commitment of substantial taxpayer funds to organisations who used it to promote gender ideology to school children:

Most of the documents that were produced as a result of this funding were so bad that the PSHE who initially hosted them, removed them from view. Here is some of the material that was produced, illustrated in an article I wrote at the time:

One particular outfit, Equaliteach, wrote something so bad (using taxpayer funds) that the next Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, publicly disowned it. Neverthless, it's still available free to schools to download. Details here - and note that only last year, the Government was still giving this outfit money .

Back to the LGBT Action Plan: yes it also covered the new "Relationship and Sex Education" Guidance for schools.

When this came out, it required schools to teach school children about 'gender identity' just as if this had always been a thing. See page 26 :

Parents have been fighting the indoctrination of their children with gender ideology by some schools ever since.

The LGBT Action Plan signed up the Crown Prosecution Service to write a Hate Crimes School Pack.

The resulting document was so bad it had to be withdrawn. I wrote about it here :

Safe Schools Alliance mounted a Judicial Review to get this CPS document withdrawn. They were successful. That's how bad our public institutions got for a while - they produced documents completely captured by incoherent ideology; quite often they misrepresented the law.

The Conversion Therapy Ban which risks criminalising responsible therapists for challenging the gender identification of vulnerable young people? It originated here too.

Women accused of hate crime for refering to biological reality?

Violent male prisoners in women's prisons?

Reform of the Gender Recognition Act? The document commited to making it less bureaucratic and instrusive. (p22)

Statistics? "The Government Equalities Office, the Office for National Statistics and the Government Statistical Service will work together on a cross-government project to develop monitoring standards for sexual orientation and gender identity across central government." Was it this engagement that led the ONS to commit to allowing people to self-identify their sex in the Census? Once again, a decision only reversed via a legal challenge from FairPlayforWomen .

Sports? "Following Sport England’s investment in a study by Pride Sports to identify how to better support LGBT inclusion in sport, Sport England will consider the recommendations of the research." - The start of an increasing presence of trans-identifying men in women's sports?

Privileged access to decision-making? "To help us guide and deliver this plan, we will establish a new LGBT Advisory Panel for government. The Minister for Women and Equalities will appoint the membership for the group and it will comprise representatives from civil society. The panel will advise on LGBT issues that we have an interest in." Here they are getting updates on GRA Reform - and the development of the Census . Were there any women groups getting similar updates? (No).

***

All the things women have been fighting ever since seem to have originated or been reinforced in this 2018 LGBT Action Plan signed off by Penny Mordaunt. The presence of violent males in women's prisons, trans-identify males winning trophies in women's sports, the promotion of gender ideology in schools, men who identify as 'non-binary' being allowed into women's hospital wards, the undermining of science via 'sex assigned at birth', the threats to free speech from the definitions of 'hate crime' and 'hate incidents', the slow erosion of women's language via 'individuals assigned female at birth'.

Why did Mordaunt sign it all off? No concerns for science, free speech, women's rights, children's safeguarding? Shouldn't the very first mention of 'people assigned female at birth' have resulted in a major red flag? This is not science - it's ideology. How could a government minister be so easily captured by it all; participate in promoting it? More work is needed to understand this era in our history. What lessons can we learn?

The next Prime Minister must launch a public enquiry so we can document and learn from the unedifying capture of our public institutions by an incoherent ideology that does great harm.

Coming Soon to a Children’s Playground Near You

Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:57:44 GMT

Scottish GRCs and the Consequences for Public Protection in the UK

Written by a guest blogger, 14 July 2022

Do you live in England or Wales? Did you miss the deadline of 16 May to complete the Scottish Government’s survey on its proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act?

It’s not too late to make your voice heard. You can still write to, or meet with, your MP and ask them to lobby Ministers at Westminster to refuse cross-border recognition of GRCs issued in Scotland based on self-ID.

You might ask: why should I? After all, it only affects Scotland, doesn’t it?

Well no, as Fair Play For Women explains here . If you haven’t already, please take a look.

But even if you think those reasons, however justified, are too remote to concern you, let me give you a compelling reason why this rush by the Scottish Government towards easily-obtained GRCs has serious implications for each and every one of us living in the UK.

Quite simply, it presents a wholly foreseeable threat to public protection . Wherever we live in the UK, we will pay the price. Let me explain.

Protecting the public was my legal responsibility for nearly 28 years. I served in English prisons first as a prison officer and thereafter rising through the grades to mid-ranking prison governor. Dealing with recidivists and risk assessing their potential for further offending was my bread and butter.

In March 2021, HM Prison Service introduced a new risk predictor tool known as OSP (OASys Sexual reoffending Predictor) to assess all adult male prisoners in England and Wales who were convicted of a current or previous sexual or sexually motivated offence. It proved to be rather more accurate than all previous processes used to predict a male sex offender’s likelihood of future offending and it enabled prisons and the Probation Service to tailor the management of these higher risk offenders more effectively both during custody and after release.

The reason why OSP is exclusively a risk predictor tool for men and why it cannot - and is not - used for women is because female sex offenders (statistically a vanishingly small group indeed) have vastly different motivations and patterns of offending. They have their own risk assessment process, an exclusively female-centred one.

I think you know where I am going with this.

OSP is not used for male sex offenders who have GRCs. They are automatically excluded because their legal sex is female. Instead, the risk assessment process for biologically female sex offenders is used, even though it is completely invalid for male-pattern sex offending and useless at predicting their future risk.

Don’t take my word for it. The Prisons Minister, Victoria Atkins, recently confirmed this legal loophole in the House of Commons.

The result? The GRA already renders current public protection policy a mess. We know that there is at least one male sex offender with GRC in a women’s prison in England and he has been removed from OSP.

What I can reasonably predict is that the mess is statistically likely to get worse. It will impact in ways never intended by the authors of the existing Gender Recognition Act.

We know that at last count, there were 158 male prisoners (including 12 cross dressers) in male prisons in England and Wales who claim to be transgender, and that nearly 60% of them have current or previous convictions for sex offences. For comparison, the overall proportion of sex offenders in the general male prison population is less than 15%. There is an undeniable pattern here.

What we don’t know - and even though Scottish male prisoners were ten-a-penny in the various prisons at which I served in the North of England, I’d be amazed if the Prison Service even knew - is how many of those have a Scottish birth certificate or are “ordinarily resident” in Scotland.

Either would qualify a Scottish prisoner in prison anywhere in the UK for a GRC in a matter of months when the Scottish Government has its way and amends the Act. It has already confirmed that being in prison is not a bar. It has already confirmed that being a sex offender is not a bar. After all, it’s wonderfully inclusive .

Current England and Wales Prison Service transgender policy - preferred pronouns, access to ‘the preferred facilities list’ meaning make-up, women’s clothing, etc - will have the unintended consequence of supporting that quick and easy path to a Scottish GRC.

In short, an unquantifiable number of Scottish-born male prisoners in England and Wales - statistically likely to include a high proportion of sex offenders - will be able to obtain a GRC, and those GRCs will not only mean they have a right to be transferred to a women’s prison but if they are sex offenders, they will automatically be excluded from any meaningful risk assessment that will predict with any accuracy their potential for committing further sex offences after release.

Without a meaningful risk assessment, it will be impossible for the Prison Service or the Probation Service to put into place appropriate licence conditions and safeguards to mitigate the risk to the public on release.

Outraged? I am. I have written to my MP and laid the facts bare. She can’t now claim that no one told her, that she didn’t know. In fact, I pointed out to her that I can see no good reason why any male sex offender with GRC - whether born in Scotland or not - should be excused from a risk predictor tool known to be highly accurate. I certainly don’t see why a bad policy decision should be made worse by the Scottish Government’s determination to rush through a policy that doesn’t even have majority support from Scottish voters.

Join us in saying No to cross-border recognition of Scottish GRCs. This is a public protection failure waiting to happen. The English and Welsh public will pay the price.

If you haven’t already written to your MP at Westminster to express your concerns, please - do it now.

An amendent to the Schools Bill seeks visibility and openness for parents

Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:04:07 GMT

Schools teaching gender ideology to school children must allow parent engagement and challenge

Written by Caroline ffiske, 15 June 2022

In recent years, our children’s education, and the ideas they are exposed to in schools, have become increasingly contested. In particular, the Government’s 2019 Relationship and Sex Education Guidance for schools has inadvertantly led to a significant increase in the ideological, unscientific, and transgressive materials being taught to our children, much of it relating to gender ideology.

When parents have sought to engage with schools on these materials, to view these materials, they have sometimes met with resistance and sometimes been blocked. Commercial confidentiality is one of the reasons that has been cited by schools and resource providers.

Conservatives for Women are therefore delighted to see the proposed amendment to the current Schools Bill shown above, and available here . Proposed by (Labour) Baroness Morris and (Conservative) Lord Sandhurst, if accepted, it would clarify that parents have the right to view all curriculum materials that their children will be exposed to in schools.

There are many reasons for supporting this amendment. Schools should welcome and encourage parental engagement. As we move forward as a country, we continue to engage in passionate debate about how science, history, and our traditions and culture, should be transmitted to our children and their children. We all, including schools, should welcome and encourage wide democratic participation, as well as openness and challenge, in this debate.

But our particular interest is that of gender ideology and the way that it is increasingly being introduced to our children via our schools.

Meanwhile, the 2019 RSE Guidance is also very clear that parents should have visibility of what is being taught to their children. Parents must be consulted in developing and reviewing RSE policies. Policies should 'reflect the communities they serve'. 'Policies must be made available to parents'. Policies should be 'published on the school website'. This intention for openness also covers RSE content : Policies should 'set out the subject content, how it is taught and who is responsible for teaching it'. Policies should 'include sections covering details of content and schemes of work'. This clear call for parental engagement reflects the potential sensitivity around RSE subject matter and should work as a bulwark against ideology and inappropriate and inaccurate materials.

Nevertheless, parents across the country have been alarmed by their children returning home from school and recounting stories about the transgressive / scientifically inaccurate material they have been taught. When parents have approached schools asking to view RSE material some have been blocked. When parents have pressed hard on this matter, some schools have continued to block them and some have used the argument that RSE content provided by external providers is commercially confidential.

We consider the promotion of gender ideology in schools to be directly linked to the number of teenagers now identifying as ‘trans’, some of whom will go on to access cross-sex hormone treatment which, if persisted with, will result in sterility, lack of sexual function, known health consequences such as osteoporosis, other unknown health consequences, and a lifetime as a medical patient.

How are children supposed to process the following? How many of today's girls wear everyday clothes that are closer to GI Joe? So what does that suggest to them?

Hence Conservatives for Women supports and welcomes this amendment:

1) There is ample evidence that the 2019 RSE Guidance has resulted in schools teaching age-inappropriate, transgressive, scientifically-inaccurate material to school children.

2) Meanwhile it is abundantly clear that the intention of the 2019 RSE Guidance was to enable parents to engage in detail with the materials their children would be exposed to.

3) Yet there is clear evidence that some RSE Resource providers & schools have prevented parents from seeing materials, including using the argument of commercial confidentiality.

4) We therefore welcome this amendment to the Schools Bill which clarifies that parents have a right to view all curriculum materials used in their children's schools. If this is restricted to being on the school premises, this overcomes any concerns from external providers about commercial confidentiality.

5) If you do too, please email your MP and ask them to indicate to Education Ministers that they support amendment 171F to the Schools Bill. Ask your friends to do the same.

Tory Relationships & Sex-Ed reforms allow transgressive materials into schools

Sat, 04 Jun 2022 12:47:59 GMT

Children's boundaries are being over-ridden and parent's efforts to safeguard, undermined.

Written by Caroline ffiske; published 6 May 2022.

Recently the Daily Mail carried an article by the author, Milli Hill, which exposed the type of materials making their way into schools as a result of the Conservative government’s 2019 Relationships and Sex Education reforms.

Since this reform, dozens, if not hundreds, of organisations have spotted a lucrative opportunity to create and sell materials which contain transgressive, age-inappropriate, ideological content to schools.

In her article, Hill made a reference to resources created by Jigsaw which “include a group activity in which a mixed sex group of ten year-olds discuss masturbation in pairs”.

“One mum, who did not wish to be named, said her child’s primary school in Lambeth, South London, had signed a contract with an external provider called Jigsaw, agreeing it would not distribute teaching materials to parents.”

“She sent the school a freedom of information request, but was told that, after consultation with both Jigsaw and legal specialists, they were unable to allow her to see the course materials.”

This last point strikes me as against the government’s guidance. Indeed, when Hill contacted Jigsaw, they said parents could see their materials, in schools, in the presence of a teacher. Well, seemingly, that is not what one parent was told. All remaining ambiguity about this must now be cleared up by the government: parents must have the right to see all and any of their school’s teaching materials.

Following on from Hill’s article, a concerned teacher sent me the material referred to. It is contained in Jigsaw’s “Changing Me - Ages 10-11”. The gist is correct. Jigsaw has produced materials that teach 10-11 year old children, about masturbation, in mixed-sex group settings.

Parents have every right to be concerned, angry; in fact, incandescent. As they enter puberty, kids instinctively become very private about their bodies. Group discussion about something so private - and which they are likely to have never contemplated, in a sexual way, at the age of ten - is likely to feel awkward, confusing, shameful, shocking, transgressive. The result of public discussion? Tearing away a veil. Trespassing a boundary. Lowering natural inhibition.

Jigsaw repeatedly refers to the ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ nature of masturbation, to ten-year-olds... Imagine being the parent of a very quiet private ten-year-old girl who comes home, confused by this?

When Jigsaw tells ten-year-olds ‘it’s absolutely normal’ to masturbate, the corollary is that a child might feel that it is abnormal to not do so. In this sense, it is legitimate to argue that Jigsaw is effectively promoting masturbation to ten-year-olds. This is altering a child’s relationship with his or her own body . This is a transgressive adult imposition.

There are some things that kids don’t want to discuss with their parents. So why on earth does Jigsaw think these things are more appropriately discussed, by Jigsaw, and its trainers , in a classroom setting, full of ten year olds? Who would have guessed that this would be - on a powerpoint slide perhaps - in a British primary school classroom, in 2022, for a group discussion, with ten-year-olds?

The human race survived without the Brave New World of Jigsaw’s inhibition-crushing, boundaries-over-ride.

Adults - do you sit at work having group discussions about masturbation? No? It’s private? Staring sexual stuff in the face, in groups, is transgessive? If ancient and obvious wisdom tells us not to discuss masturbation over lunch, how exactly does Jigsaw lose sight of the fact that the same applies to primary school children?

What are the other possible side effects of normalising sexual discussions between adults they've never met - and school children? Safeguarding concerns anyone?

We have a pornography crisis amongst our boys and young men. It is destroying the lives of plenty of young people, men and women . Who thinks normalising talk of masturbation, amongst kids, in group settings, is likely to hasten that first click through to a porn site?

Full disclosure. The Jigsaw document described here is 114 pages long. I have presented extracts. But they speak for themselves. Jigsaw might complain that we should look at the whole document. That is, indeed, what we are asking for. All materials used in schools for RSE lessons should be made available for parents to review, in detail.

***

The ‘old days’ where kids / parents muddled their way through the birds and the bees weren’t perfect. The 2019 RSE reforms were well-intentioned. Somehow or other the Conservative government believed that the Big State would do a better job in this tricky area than millions of parents. In my view they could not have been more spectacularly wrong. The RSE reforms have created an open door for transgression, pseudo-science, and harmful ideology to be promoted to our kids.

Modern parents have an extraordinarily difficult time attempting to teach their children to build and maintain boundaries - and to respect those of others. The RSE reforms have made this spectacularly more difficult - we now need to worry about what our kids are seeing in the classroom, as well as everywhere else.

Fixing the mess will be complicated. Part of the solution is obvious: require all schools to make all RSE materials available to parents for full review, not just in school, but on websites. Indeed if schools are proud and confident in what they are teaching children, RSE materials should be proactively emailed to parents, in advance of lessons, for their full review. Why not make this compulsory?

Jigsaw: one of many organisations promoting gender ideology to school children

Mon, 30 May 2022 14:16:50 GMT

New government guidance is urgently needed.

Written by Caroline ffiske, 30 May 2022

Many organisations continue to produce materials that introduce school children to gender ideology and the idea they might have be born in the wrong body.

This is despite the fact that the Department for Education has produced guidance making clear to schools that they should not do so.

Gender ideology, which promotes the idea that we all have a inner ‘gender identity’ unrelated to our sex, and which should take priority over our sex, relies on gendered stereotypes. How might you discover your own inner gender identity? Only by reference to stereotypes. The Mermaids ‘Barbie - GI Joe’ spectrum exemplifies this . How might a little boy really be a girl? Because he likes pink and dresses?

Introducing children to the idea that they might have been born in the wrong body risks an escalating scale of harm. First is simply the flaky pseudo-science which has no place in schools. Then the discomfort for kids when the idea is planted that they should have an inner gender identity. What regressive set of social stereotypes best fits them? What if they get it wrong? What if they are the one trapped in the wrong body? Then for the small number who get deeply caught up: conflict with family; the attempt to live out a lie; potential escalation to cross-sex hormones and life-long medication with unknown long-term side effects. Sterilisation and lack of sexual function. Possibly invasive and risky surgery.

All for a dodgy notion introduced by teachers in primary school?

A concerned teaching assistant has sent us content from the PSHE resource provider, Jigsaw . It’s aimed at 10-11 year olds; kids in Year 6 at primary school. We present part of it below.

Imagine being 10 or 11 and attempting to get your head around all of this:

Put yourself in the place of a ten year old kid. Non-binary? Gender-fluid? ‘Identifying as neither male or female’, ‘biological gender at birth’, ‘the gender spectrum between male and female’ - what pernicious nonsense it all is. Humans are born male and female. Beyond that we are free to explore our own uniqueness, shaped by the vast reaches of family, culture, history, and biology. We should not teach kids to orientate themselves around a simplistic, vacuous, restrictive, regressive, ‘gender spectrum’.

Then Jigsaw introduces kids to the story of Roberta Cowell:

The whole thing is dumbed-down and disingenuous.

How does someone ‘feel like a female’? As Allison Bailey has said ‘ I believe that a man who professes to identify as a woman does not identify as a woman, because he has no frame of reference from which to do so. What he in fact identifies with are the social concepts and stereotypes that have been misogynistically applied to women.’

How does Jigsaw know the reason behind Cowell’s depression? Notice how leaving his wife and daughters is so casually brushed aside? Cowell didn’t ‘change his male body into a female one’ - this is lying to school kids. How does Jigsaw know Roberta ‘felt much happier’? Why does Jigsaw leave out the details set out below?

The Independent newspaper wrote an obituary to Roberta Cowell . Cowell died alone in a cluttered sheltered-housing flat at the the age of 93. He walked out on his wife and two daughters, aged six and four. They never saw nor heard from him again.

“Now 71 and 69, they were shocked to learn of their father's death. "I have never sobbed like that," says Diana when we meet. "I didn't realise that pain was still there. What our father did has always had a great bearing on my life. The way I used to cope was by flying into fantasy." Anne, her elder sister, took a more detached approach. "I felt that if someone hurt me in life, I didn't want to have anything to do with them," she says. "It was easier to shut them out."”

On learning of Cowell’s ‘sex change’: “While Anne, being older, was told what had happened at the time, Diana did not find out until later. "Nobody told me about the sex change," she recalls. "I read about it in a newspaper. They were trying to protect me. But it was the biggest shock of my life. I must have been 12 or 13. The worst thing was that suddenly, I knew this was reality. Your father's not coming back to you. Ever. And that's why it hurt so much."”

The real cause of Cowell’s depression? Who knows? Maybe some of the following:

“What we do know is that Cowell had a traumatic war. Despite being deemed unfit to fly by the RAF in 1935, because of recurring motion sickness, Cowell was determined to become a fighter pilot and spent the first two years of the war in a series of frustrating training and engineering posts, including a stint in Iceland. When, eventually, she was transferred to the RAF, she was still suffering acute sickness.

Cowell flew Tiger Moths, Spitfires and Miles Masters, and knew that every day could be her last. "Narrow escapes were a daily event," she writes. "Several of my closest friends were killed, and I regarded it as just a matter of time as far as I was concerned….

In November 1944, her plane took a direct hit over Germany, and Cowell survived a crash landing, was taken into captivity, and ended up in Stalag Luft I. The conditions were appalling, food limited and clothing in short supply. At one point, there was so little food that prisoners were forced to eat the camp cats – raw.”

Jigsaw tells kids “Roberta carried on driving in motor sports events and had a very successful career until she died in 2011… What an incredible life!”

What nonsense. Here’s what Cowell’s obituary said: ‘Financial problems caused her to race less, and in the 1970s, Betty, as she was then known, tried to write another book to generate funds. In her last interview, in 1972, she condemned other trans people, and criticised the "permissive society", warning others not to follow in her footsteps. But the book was never published, and she withdrew from public life.”

Full sympathy with Roberta Cowell - what a life indeed. But let us be clear: Jigsaw is misrepresenting Cowell’s life for political ends which involve children. I am not at all sure that Cowell would approve. Cowell’s life should not be used for Jigsaw’s propaganda. It’s disrespectful to misrepresent someone’s life for your own political ends.

***

Of course we should teach school children that everyone should be treated with respect. But we shouldn’t tell school children that you can be a man, but a woman inside, because you can’t. We shouldn’t teach children that they should try to locate themselves on an unbelievably vacuous and regressive ‘gender spectrum’. We shouldn’t encourage bodily disassociation with casual phrases like that you can feel male ‘but were born with a female body’, as if our bodies are throw-away containers constraining our true selves. Are drugs and surgery and life-long medication really routes to happiness? Ask the question: who actually benefits from all this?

With all kinds of providers bent on producing materials which introduce gender ideology to school children, the onus is currently on parents to be on the look-out. We need to challenge schools to show us what is being taught to our children. In response, often schools will say that RSE or PSHE materials have been purchased from private providers and cannot be shared. Then we are stumped.

The government cannot let the situation continue. New guidance is needed - and urgently.

Non-Binary Gender Identities

Wed, 25 May 2022 15:53:54 GMT

Non-Binary Gender Identities: who cares?

Published 25 May 2022

We do, and you should too.

Some of you will have watched the debate that took place on Monday 23rd May in Westminster Hall. If you would like to know what a 'Westminster Hall debate' is, then see footnote*

These debates can provide valuable insight into what MPs are thinking on various issues and the one that took place this week was no exception, although speakers did stray a long way from the actual topic of the debate.

It's worth watching or reading the whole 90 minutes, but I want to concentrate on the topic it was supposed to be about; the petition here: 'That this House has considered e-petition 580220 , relating to legal recognition of non-binary gender identities.'

Here is the petition text:

“Make non-binary a legally recognised gender identity in the UK

Have non binary be included as an option under the GRP (Gender Recognition Panel)/ GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate), in order to allow those identifying as non binary to be legally seen as their true gender identity. As well as having ‘Non-binary’ be seen as a valid transgender identity.
There is no option of ‘Non-binary’ on legal forms, ignoring members of the population. This requires the government to pass a law that publicly recognises ‘Non-binary’ as a part of the GRP under the Gender Recognition Act, a.k.a a legal and valid gender identity option. By recognising Non-binary as a valid gender identity, it would aid in the protection of Non-binary individuals against transphobic hate crimes, and would ease Gender Dysphoria experienced by Non-binary people.”

There is a lot to unpack there.....

It appears that what is being asked for is for the state to recognise a 'third sex', or to have the legal right to have no sex at all. To be sexless.

Lets, for now, ignore the 'true gender identity' and 'valid transgender identity' rabbit holes (definitions, anyone? Anyone?) and concentrate on the legal implications of what is being asked for.

Our regular readers will know that a Gender Recognition Certificate effectively changes a person's 'legal sex', subject to exceptions outlined in the Equality Act 2010. It does not give someone a 'legally recognised gender identity'. Those of us who have been in the trenches for some time are well aware that this obfuscation, this use of sex and gender as interchangeable attributes, is a hallmark of 'trans demands activists' or TDAs.

What the TDAs are demanding here, is the right to have no record of their sex at all. And that is a dangerous road to go down.

Sex is one of the nine protected characteristics for good reason. It is something over which we have no control; I had no more control over being born female than I did over the parents I was born to, or the colour of my eyes. Unlike eye colour though, being born female comes with a whole load of baggage.

Our sex affects us at every point in our lives, and it certainly matters in law and policy. People, male and female, are sometimes treated in different ways due to their sex; sometimes for good reason, such as in healthcare provision, and sometimes for a bad reason, such as women having their potential reproductive capacity held against them in the workplace.

So how does someone calling themselves 'non-binary' have any effect on women? Well, here at CFW we have no issue with anyone calling themselves whatever they like. On this we agree with JK Rowling: “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security.”

But if people are allowed to have no sex at all, or to have a legal status of 'non-binary' then yes, we do have a problem. Because that means every single one of the rights we have as women and girls, to single-sex services, spaces, sports, and opportunities go right out of the window.

These are often called 'sex-based rights' as shorthand, though I do like the Legal Feminist interpretation:
“What are “sex based rights”? What do women mean by the phrase – and do we even have them?

A pithy answer is that they are the remedy to sex based wrongs, perhaps – depressingly – a far more readily identifiable set.”

So, some questions:

Which single-sex domestic violence refuge does someone who has no legal sex use?
Which single-sex toilet and changing facilities does someone who has no legal sex use?
Which single-sex sports team does someone who has no legal sex play on?
Which single-sex arts prize or academic scholarship can someone who has no legal sex win? We are already seeing numerous examples of such things open to 'women, those who identify as women and non-binary applicants'.
How do we address the specific needs of women and girls if we will no longer have access to accurate data because some people want to have no sex at all?
Where does this leave the Equality Act 2010 and the protected characteristic of sex?

Will the TDAs answer? Don't hold your breath......

We will hear people (and we know that many of these will be male people) saying 'I don't have a sex so none of your rules apply to me'. We know these 'rules', that men can be excluded from our spaces, services, sports, and opportunities, are there for good reasons. To provide women and girls with dignity, privacy, safety, and a level playing field in sport and other spheres.

This is not just a fad that has no implications for the rest of society; the consequences are clear. Listen to or read what three Conservative MPs contributed to this debate, and ask your MP where they stand.
We have no choice when it comes to our sex; but don't let us make the choice to sleepwalk into a world where it is erased.

Nick Fletcher MP
“Many of the people I have spoken to have said that they supported the petition because they feel that, at present, they do not exist. I want the community of people who feel that they are non-binary to know that, of course, I accept that they exist. I see them; I hear them; I feel for them; and I want to help them. I say to them, “We are a tolerant nation and we accept you as you are.” It does not follow, however, that the law should be changed to reflect the way that certain individuals feel. No matter where anyone sits on this subject, their opinion should be respected.”

Miriam Cates MP
“To recognise non-binary as a gender identity in statute would be a mistake, separating law from reality and putting vulnerable children at risk. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher): this is a debate about people, and I fully recognise that there are many people in this country who identify as non-binary and should absolutely be accepted. However, this is a matter of putting ideology into law, and we should resist that.”

Tim Loughton MP
“Frankly, anybody who has the audacity to question any of these things, as I just have, is faced with the cancel culture, which is so utterly damaging and absolutely does not help the population as a whole. It certainly does not help women, and it does not help the gay and lesbian population, who feel greatly restricted by much of this. This argument and the terminology in the petition are, I am afraid, about the creeping blurring of language and a conflation of and around sex and gender. That threatens to erase the recognition of males and females—of men and women.”

Notes:

*There are different types of Westminster Hall debates:

On Tuesday and Wednesdays, MPs can apply for a debate and these are allocated by a ballot arranged by the Speaker's Office. Debates in Westminster Hall take place on ‘general debate' motions expressed in neutral terms. These motions are worded ‘That this House has considered [a specific matter]'. Votes do not take place but any MP interested in the issue can come along and speak.

On Thursdays debates are either requested by MPs and determined by the Backbench Business Committee, or are on select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

The other category is a 'petitions debate', and these take place on Mondays. The Petitions Committee can determine whether a sitting should take place in Westminster Hall to consider one or more petitions or e-petitions.

https://petition.parliament.uk

If a petition gets 10,000 signatures, the government will respond, usually with a brief written statement.

If a petition gets 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/sign-a-petition/e-petitions /

How to manage Gender Critical Women: British Library buys Stonewall training

Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:22:21 GMT

Delivered by Zoom. Cost £1500 per session, plus VAT.

Written by Caroline ffiske; published 24 March 2022

Last month, the Telegraph reported that the British Library is introducing pronoun badges for its staff. Voluntary of course. Stonewalled? Why ask?

According to the Telegraph, ‘Internal documents’ have been circulated to British Library staff explaining that making assumptions about gender can send a “harmful” message “even if correct”.

Will the day come when the British Library puts these 'internal documents' on permanent display to record the mass cowardice and gullible conformity displayed by our great institutions in the face of gender ideology? I hope so.

Curiosity piqued by the Telegraph's reporting, I made a Freedom of Information request asking the British Library what other advice it was taking from Stonewall. Sure enough, the results showed that the Library continues to dish out £2,500 a year to be part of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme.

Familiarity with Stonewall meant I thought I knew what to expect. A recent version of Stonewall’s ‘Workplace Equality Index’ criteria says that workplace policies should avoid gendered language. Men who self-identify as women should be able to use women’s toilet facilities. Staff should be allowed to carry passes identifying them as different genders on different days. Workplaces should consider removing ‘gender markers’ from all systems - unsex us all now, why not? All the usual stuff that complacently seeks to obliterate the material reality of our sexed lives and bodies, which impact how men and women live and orientate around each other every day; and which is of elementary significance for women’s safety, dignity, and privacy.

What I wasn’t expecting to see, was the British Library paying Stonewall to deliver advice on how its security and front-of-house staff should deal with women who know that sex is real and matters. What one might call "How-to-tackle-a-Terf" training.

Here are the training scenarios that Stonewall proposed for the British Library:

“ A protest forms on the street outside the library. When your manager speaks to them, they tell you they oppose the inclusion of trans women in the exhibition. They have brought placards and a megaphone.They are handing out leaflets to people entering the exhibition telling them that the exhibition oppresses women. You have been asked to support by keeping the protestors within their allotted protest area and minimising the disruption to library visitors. How would you approach this task?

You are patrolling the exhibition and a visitor comes to you letting you know that someone is wearing a t-shirt that is offensive to trans people while walking around the exhibition. What action would you take?

A member of the public approaches you to tell you they have just used the toilets and there are stickers all over the doors which have anti-LGBT messages on them. What would you do?

You are working on the floor of the exhibition. A group of people with tickets enter the exhibition and after ten minutes they unfurl a banner that reads ‘sex not gender’ and then sit down around it. What do you do?”

Delivered by Zoom. Cost £1500 per session, plus VAT. History does not relate whether these precise training scenarios, proposed by Stonewall, went ahead.

Something did. There was much email back and forth in late 2020. Culminating in: “Someone with the screen name [blank] has joined this call and is being a bit disruptive. Someone else has questioned whether they work at the British Library. I wonder if you have a way to check and if you do not we can remove them”. Shout out to the heroic Terf in the front-of-house team at the British Library.

Let’s try to imagine what the training session might have been like.

“How would you handle the protest outside? Tim? You would do what you always do when there is a protest? Great stuff. Moving along…

What about the offensive t-shirt? Your thoughts Tania? Ask them to button up their cardigan? Oh really good. They refuse? Bob is asking in chat how the t-shirt we’re illustrating here is offensive. He says that surely a woman is an adult human female. Bob, can we take that offline? … Good bye Bob.

Let’s look at stickers now. Tim would use soap and water to remove them. Jenny would alert the cleaning staff. So would Tony. James…? James would alert the cleaning staff... Some excellent material coming through; really good best-practice. Thanks guys. Let me catch up with my notes - I don’t want to lose any of this. We can share this with other Stonewall champions. [£1500 a pop.]”

That the British Library engaged with Stonewall about this material is absurd. People have a right to protest. The security staff at public institutions are trained in how to deal with protests. Balancing and managing the rights of protestors is technical and specialist. It is something about which Stonewall is highly unlikely to have more expertise than your average security firm. Yet they charge £1500 for a Zoom session? This feels like pure grift to funnel yet more public money to Stonewall.

On the other hand, it feels profoundly disturbing. There are many men and women who know that sex is real and that it matters. They are concerned about an ideology, promoted by Stonewall, which seeks to preference self-declared 'inner gender' over sex, in the making of law and the ordering of public life. These people are allowed to make their views known using the usual forms of protest accepted in British public life. Yet the British Library seems to be singling them out for silencing. What is the basis for this? Misogyny? Or institutional cowardice and gullible conformity from another of our supposedly great institutions, too afraid to challenge Stonewall?

There is other concerning material from the British Library, revealed by FOI, but somehow it pales in comparison.

The British Library has a Women’s network which is ‘inclusive’. Have as many LGBTQIA+ days and networks and policies as you like, but, seemingly, women must have nothing that is just their own.

The British Library says that it does not ask for the sex of job applicants - only gender identity. Well, that will put off applicants who don’t believe in the concept. Talk about gate-keeping. Keep Terfs off the staff. Keep Terfs out of exhibitions. Pincer movement complete.

Is the British Library for everyone, including those of us who know that sex is real and that it matters? Perhaps gender critical men and women should just not turn up? Or then again, perhaps we should. Why waste good training?

What is 'psychologically' a woman?

Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:38:52 GMT

Sport is played with our sexed bodies, not our 'gender identities'

I applaud any journalist who brings attention to the absolute travesty that is the Lia Thomas case; sport is played with our sexed bodies, not our 'gender identities' and we need the public to be made aware of what is being inflicted upon women under the guise of 'inclusivity'.

I am also generally a fan of Sarah Vine; she doesn't usually shy away from difficult subjects and does not seem to be afraid of controversy; so why am I angry about this article ?

It's because of this paragraph:

"The truth in this case is that Lia Thomas, while emotionally and psychologically a woman, still retains much of the physical attributes she acquired as a man. And as such, she should not be competing against other women who do not possess her inherent advantages."

The truth? Let's be absolutely clear: Lia Thomas is a man. Born male, a boy, now grown to adulthood and therefore a man. It doesn't matter what Thomas does to his body, or how he wants to be perceived, the fact is he is a man. Our mainstream press seem to believe it would be wrong to say this, or perhaps believe it would be unkind to say it, so we end up with paragraphs like the one above.

How is Thomas 'emotionally' a woman? Does he cry at chick-flicks? How can anyone make sense of that description without resorting to stereotypes?

How is Thomas 'psychologically' a woman? Again with the stereotypes; as I was reading this article, (in a break from sorting out some financial arrangements), my husband was sewing.

Is he 'psychologically' a woman?

Then 'she should not be competing against other women'. We all know that this should read 'he should not be competing against women'. The use of 'she' and the phrase 'other women' gives the impression Thomas is a type of woman. He is not. He is a man. He may prefer us to comply with his belief he is some type of woman, but he is not, and let's be honest, the often heard plea 'be kind' really means 'be compliant'.

In a brilliant article by Barra Kerr , (now on the Fair Play for Women website after being removed from Mumsnet and Medium) the effects of this abuse of reality are made clear:

“Forcing our brains to ignore the evidence of our eyes, to ignore a conflict between what we see and know to be true, and what we are expected to say, affects us.”

Now I know some of you may feel this is unfair, that Sarah Vine is doing her very best under difficult circumstances in order to bring this issue to the attention of millions of readers. We agree, the circumstances are difficult; ask one of the many women (and some men) who have been banned from social media and from various websites for the crime of speaking the truth.

But while we continue to repeat the ridiculous idea that a man can be 'emotionally and psychologically a woman' then we will continue to tread water in the fight for the rights of women and the safeguarding of children. I struggle to believe Sarah Vine believes this man is actually a woman, so why not speak the truth?

As Barra Kerr says:

“I want to be alert. I want others to be alert. I want people to see the real picture, and I want those instinctive reactions that we feel when something is wrong, to be un-blunted, un-dulled by this cheap but effective psychological trick. I feel like I owe this to myself, and I absolutely owe it to other women.

And more than anything, I owe this to girls. I don’t want to play even the tiniest part in grooming them to disregard their natural protective instincts. Those instincts are there for a reason. To keep them safe. They need those instincts intact, and sharp.”

We owe it to women, and we certainly owe it to girls. To keep us all safe. To protect women’s sport. To preserve our hard-won rights.

Statement in response to the EHRC intervention

Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:16:28 GMT

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s response to the UK Government’s Consultation on conversion therapy and its letter to the Scottish Government about reform of the Gender Recognition Act are a breath of fresh air.

The Commission has called for careful and respectful discussion of potential changes to the law and asked all Governments to take the time needed to ensure that definitions are clear, and that the policy is evidence-based.

The EHRC’s mandate is to challenge discrimination, and to protect and promote everyone’s human rights. LGB (lesbian, gay and bisexual) and women’s grassroots organisations have for the last few years been raising the alarm at policies, advocated by gender identity activists, which only recognise the rights of one group.

Protecting human rights often means balancing the interests of people with different protected characteristics. Legislators and regulators must listen to the views of all and not favour a particular lobby or allow one group’s interests to destroy the rights of others. As the EHRC have stated, the established legal concept of sex is a critical underpinning to all our rights; including those of LGB people, women and people who identify as transgender.

The EHRC has clearly listened to our voices. For this we thank the Commission. For our part we will continue to lobby all Governments to focus on what any good law requires – open debate, broad consultation, human rights impact assessments, clear language and proper regard for evidence.

Signed

LGB Alliance, Merched Cymru, Fair Play for Women, Transgender Trend, Conservatives for Women, AEA, Safe Schools Alliance, FiLiA, Sex Matters, LGB Alliance Cymru, Labour Women’s Declaration Working Group, For Women Scotland, Lesbian Labour, LGB Alliance Scotland, Women’s Equality Party Sex-Based Rights Caucus, Women Uniting, Lesbian Fightback, Liberal Voice for Women, Woman’s Place UK, Green Feminists

Diversity Role Models promotes gender ideology to school children

Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:18:14 GMT

Yet now the Department for Education provides further funding

Written by Caroline ffiske. Published 24/01/2022.

In November last year, as part of ‘anti-bullying week’, the Department for Education announced that it had handed a new round of funding, worth over £1 million , to five organisations to help schools and colleges ‘tackle bullying’.

One of the organisations to receive funding was Equaliteach , an outfit whose output was previously publicly disowned by the Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss. Equaliteach had slurred organisations who combat the influence of gender ideology on school children, including Fair Play for Women and Transgender Trend.

Equaliteach overtly promotes gender ideology to school children, introducing them to concepts such as having an internal ‘gender identity’; advising schools that trans-identifying boys should be allowed to use girls’ toilets; and suggesting that teachers keep secrets from parents, such as that a child has come out as transgender at school and is using different pronouns.

Never mind that; the Department for Education offered Equaliteach a further round of funding totalling over £160,000 and invited them into more of our schools - ‘over 80 a year’. As a result of which, how many more children will be persuaded they were born in the wrong body?

Another organisation which received money in the same November funding round was Diversity Role Models (DRM). Now a parliamentary question tabled by Conservative MP, Tim Loughton, has revealed that the DfE has paid DRM £187,530 to work in schools from August 2021 to March 2022. The DfE is actually increasing DRM's role in our schools. DRM received £57,057 in 2016, and £131,231 in 2019-20 when it was part of the DfE’s ‘anti-homophobic, biphobic, transphobic bullying’ programme.

Let’s look at DRM's track record.

In 2020, the supermarket Asda sent out an email to its customers announcing that it had partnered with DRM to provide home learning packs for children. The primary school pack linked to a video about acceptance containing the phrase ‘love has no age’, and the associated worksheet used the slogan ‘love has no age limit’. Regardless of whether DRM was aware of it, this is a slogan used by paedophiles. At the very least, DRM should have thought carefully about how children might interpret such a statement. The secondary pack linked to a list of book recommendations including a book called ‘Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out’, which contained a first person account of performing oral sex at age six - with no suggestion that there was anything wrong with this. At the very least, an example of professional carelessness around safeguarding.

After fury from parents, DRM removed these components from its school packs and apologised. The CEO of ASDA publicly apologised via a letter to Baroness Nicholson.

Both Safe Schools Alliance (SSA) and Transgender Trend have also raised concerns about materials produced or used by Diversity Role Models.

DRM introduces children aged 7 and up to the concept of ‘transgender’. To do so, according to SSA, it has used the ‘gender unicorn’ - an unscientific piece of gobbledegook that will confuse and gaslight children.

This resource, illustrated above, deserves a detailed review.

The unicorn introduces children to the concept of ‘gender identity’; the idea that they have a sense of ‘inner gender’. So how does this work? Think about it. It can surely only give children a sense of discomfort in, disassociation from, their bodies? It promotes a disconnected dualism of body and soul. It inevitably implies that there are right and wrong ways to be a boy or a girl. “So what do I feel like inside? The adults are telling me I’m supposed to feel like… something’ ... “I’m a girl but I like splashing about in mud… so am I …?” Please give it a go at home: try describing internal gender identity to a child without raising gender stereotypes; without implying there are right ways of being a boy or a girl. It is resources like this that lead kids to go home and tell their parents they’re no longer sure if they’re a girl or a boy. This is happening in this country; ask the Bayswater Support Group .

Next, the unicorn implies to kids that there is a right and a wrong way to dress and express yourself as a man or a woman. Under ‘gender expression’ kids are offered ‘masculine, feminine, or other’. Seriously? Again, try working this through without resorting to regressive stereotypes. It would be laughable if not so sad. Tell me what a ‘masculine gender expression’ is. Is that short hair and jeans? No wonder so many girls are turning up at gender clinics…

The gender unicorn uses the scientifically illiterate concept of sex being ‘assigned at birth’. This is scientific nonsense and should not be used in an education setting.

The gender unicorn has a weird separation between ‘physical attraction’ and ‘emotional attraction’. According to the unicorn, for both of these you can be attracted to ‘men, women, or other genders’. To me the separation of physical and emotional attraction in the context of children is a safeguarding issue. In this era, we risk, if anything, the over-casualisation of sex. We know that, actually, for many people, and especially women, sex is an important emotional issue that they do not want to be casual about. They don’t agree that ‘physical’ is separable from ‘emotional’. I expect that many women do not want our girls encouraged to separate the ‘physical’ from the ‘emotional’ when it comes to sex. Question for discussion: who does this narrative suit?

As for sexual or emotional attraction being towards other ‘genders’, not male or female; - this is a current fashion for a tiny few. They are free to engage in it, but what is it doing in the classroom?

A full heads-up here: I could not verify whether DRM is still using resources of such scientifically-illiterate and socially-regressive quality as the ‘gender unicorn’; the bulk of its resources are not visible on the website. That too is concerning: if DRM is proud of its resources, and the Department for Education endorses their use, more examples should be visible.

However, in the ‘About Us’ section of its website, DRM showcases the nature of its work. A short clip is provided to show the organisation ‘in action’. A mere 40 seconds into this clip a school child is talking about self-harm and suicide. She says ‘mental health issues can stem from not feeling accepted or not feeling wanted, like self-harm, depression, anxiety, and those things can lead on to worse things such as suicide’. Just like that?

When I was a school-child the mention of suicide was virtually taboo. We do need to be aware of just how far we have moved on this issue. It is now hard to describe the sense of seriousness with which the topic was so recently treated. That taboo might not have been right. But we do need to ask whether the normalisation, the casualisation, of reference to suicide is worsening mental health outcomes for young people. Shortly afterwards, the DRM clip says: ‘85% of trans young people have deliberately hurt themselves’. Putting aside whether this is even true, this casual referencing of self-harm and suicide cannot be good for children. We live in an age where it has become increasingly normal for school children to tell their parents they are feeling suicidal. The casualisation of the talk must surely increase the normalisation of the thoughts.

In the DRM clip there is a Stonewall poster in the classroom. It says ‘Some people are trans. Get over it’. This is not appropriate for a classroom - it implies that people can’t question the assertion or an individual claim.

What if a girl has a friend who thinks she is a lesbian. But now she’s ‘come out as trans’ and is talking about puberty blockers and mastectomy. Is the girl supposed to just ‘get over it’? Accept that her friend is indeed trans? Feel inhibited about even challenging her friend? Put aside her worries and concerns? Just feel a sense of sadness, but struggle to hide it, as her friend’s voice deepens after the first testosterone shots? Refrain from showing her friend the surrounding health risks from sustained exposure to cross-sex hormones? Does the Department for Education think the poster appropriate for our classrooms?

What I would like to understand is the due diligence process that the Department for Education, and Conservative Ministers undertake, when they give our money to, and invite organisations such as Diversity Role Models and Equaliteach into our classrooms. The Department for Education has issued guidance that makes clear that gender ideology should not be promoted in the classroom. Resources like the gender unicorn do not measure up to this guidance:

“You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear… Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material.”

Can the Department for Education provide a cast-iron guarantee that Equaliteach and Diversity Role Models no longer promote gender ideology in the classroom and do not breach their own guidelines?

We’d love to see it.

The Conservative Party is played for fools by the LGBTQIA+ lobby

Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:09:41 GMT

Its conversion therapy proposals are a safeguarding disaster and will perpetuate serious harm

Written by Caroline ffiske. Published 12 January 2022.

The Conservative Government continues to be hoodwinked by the LGBTQIA+ lobby. The latest example is its commitment to ban ‘conversion therapy’. This has always been understood to cover attempts to change the sexual preferences of gay men and lesbians. Homophobic conversion therapy is now widely regarded as abhorrent; is abhorrent. If any strengthening of the law is needed there is unlikely to be a whisper of disagreement.

So why is there controversy and concern about the Government’s current proposals? The LGBTQIA+ lobby wants a conversion therapy ban to cover ‘gender identity’. Staggeringly, the Conservative Government goes along. Let’s say that a vulnerable young person becomes convinced via social media or peer-group pressure that they were ‘born in the wrong body’ and would be better off becoming medicalised for life, potentially rendered sterile, with their sex organs surgically removed. Via the ‘conversion therapy’ ban, the Tories propose that it would become a criminal offense to try to persuade such a young person that they are making a mistake.

The Government’s proposals risk criminalising expert adults who work with a growing number of young people in just these circumstances. They would criminalise talking therapies that explore this socially-contagious currently-fashionable tragedy. If this seems hard to believe, here is the actual wording from the conversion therapy consultation:

“Question 2. The government considers that delivering talking conversion therapy with the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation or changing them from being transgender or to being transgender either to someone who is under 18, or to someone who is 18 or over and who has not consented or lacks the capacity to do so should be considered a criminal offence. The consultation document describes proposals to introduce new criminal law that will capture this. How far do you agree or disagree with this?”

How will the Government define 'transgender' for these purposes? Simple self-identification, with no-one then allowed to question this? Is the goal more sterilised young people requiring lifelong medication, with additional serious health consequences (such as weak bones)? Does the Government regard this as remotely acceptable, particularly given that a considerable number of these young people are gay or lesbian? (The Bayswater Support Group, which includes over 400 families with a transgender-identifying child or adolescent, reports that over half of such children had come out as lesbian or gay before they were exposed to transgender ideology.)

The successful strategy of the LGBTQIA+ lobby in influencing the Conservative Government to arrive at this position is straight out of the ‘Denton’s Handbook’. This document was brought to widespread attention by James Kirkup writing in the Spectator back in 2019. The purpose of the document is to help trans activist groups bring about changes in the law to allow children to ‘legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities’. Says the foreword: 'We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond'.

Here is the tip from the Denton’s Handbook that the LGBTQIA+ lobby is now using on the Conservative Government: ' Tie your campaign to more popular reform. ' Doing so provides ‘ a veil of protection ’. It’s so blindingly obvious a strategy that you wouldn’t think anyone would get trapped. But the Government has. It has nodded along to the idea that gay conversion therapy should be banned, because who would now disagree? Then, with extraordinary gullibility, it has expanded the meaning of the term to cover ‘trans’ identities.

The solution to the problem is obvious: proceed with the proposals, but take any reference to ‘gender identity’ and ‘trans identities’ out. Stop being played by lobby groups. Particularly those which seem to take a cavalier approach to safeguarding and to the risk of confused young people being irreversibly damaged because they got caught up in a fad. Protect the right of same-sex attracted young people to become self-accepting lesbian or gay adults, of autistic children to be protected from harmful ideologies, and of gender non-conforming children not to feel pressured to conform to outdated sexual stereotypes.

If anyone has any residual doubts about the merits of the arguments being made by the LGBTQIA+ lobby, these should be blown away by reading the material it has pulled together to support this campaign. This can be found on the website BanConversionTherapy (BCT), powered by, amongst others, Stonewall of course - and Mermaids.

Detailed guidance on how supporters should respond to the Government’s consultation to support the proposals can be found here . Concerns about safeguarding young people don’t appear to get a look in. “The UK Government must hear that there is widespread support not only for banning conversion therapy, but for doing so comprehensively, in a way that protects all LGBTQIA+ people, no matter what their age, no matter how they identify, and no matter what form that conversion therapy takes .”

BCT says ‘2.4% of LGBT people have been subjected to conversion therapy, and a further 5% have been offered conversion therapy. These figures are higher for trans and asexual people’. This bizarre claim about ‘asexual conversion therapy’ should lead MPs to robustly query the accuracy of BCT’s wider claims.

BCT is worried that the proposed ban does not cover bisexual people or intersex people. Groups representing people who have DSDs, commonly but erroneously known as ‘intersex’, have frequently asked not to have their conditions weaponised in this way.

BCT is concerned that the proposed ban ‘ could leave worrying gaps for parts of the LGBTQIA+ community ’. Who? ‘ People on the asexual or aromantic spectrum .’

To be clear, this lobby group, taken so seriously by the Tories, wants to ban conversion therapy for aromantics. Someone is being taken for a ride; sadly it is our Government.

To suggest that the Government needs to criminalise adults for challenging someone’s aromantic status shows a lobby that has lost the plot. It’s an insult to the legacy of serious harm historically experienced by lesbian and gay people. It’s also an insult to the many families where a young person is now currently caught up in the gender identity fad and is at risk of serious harm.

BCT concludes ‘ the government … should clarify in its proposals that these also cover non-binary, intersex and asexual and aromantic people for the avoidance of doubt’ .

A significant proportion of young people now attending gender clinics are same-sex attracted. With their new cross-sex identity, they’ll emerge as straight! Is this not the true conversion therapy? BCT are keen to ensure this continues: “The government should make clear … that … gender affirmative therapy which accepts a person’s autonomous understanding of themselves without a predetermined or preferred outcome [is not] conversion therapy and therefore would not be an offence under its proposals.”

Imagine a future where a responsible and concerned therapist tries to help a same-sex attracted young woman understand that she might not be born in the wrong body, but that she might be a lesbian. That she might not want to start cross-sex hormones, but rather wait a while. That she should not yet plan for a double mastectomy, but rather wait a bit. The Government’s proposals would criminalise this therapist. How have we got to here?

If the Government proceeds with its proposals it will result in thousands of us being prepared to end up in Court. We must not be silent as we see young people harming themselves. We must not be silent as more and more detransitioners express their profound regrets and talk about their pain and their ongoing medical problems resulting from 'gender-affirming' interventions. We must fight back against this damaging ideology now so widespread wherever young people gather, and especially on social media.

It would be easy for the Government to dig itself back out of the mess it has created. Ban conversion therapy as it applies to same-sex attracted individuals. That is all.

My final words go to Keira Bell, a young woman who has ‘de-transitioned’ from a male gender identity:

‘By the time I got to the Tavistock, I was adamant that I needed to transition. It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. What was really going on was that I was a girl insecure in my body who had experienced parental abandonment, felt alienated from my peers, suffered from anxiety and depression, and struggled with my sexual orientation. After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy.

The consequences of what happened to me have been profound: possible infertility, loss of my breasts and inability to breastfeed, atrophied genitals, a permanently changed voice, facial hair. When I was seen at the Tavistock clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body. But it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery.’

Is this the future the Conservative Government wants, for more young people?

Conversion Therapy suggested response

Thu, 09 Dec 2021 18:15:50 GMT

The Banning Conversion Therapy Consultation is now open, and closes on 4 February 2022. Please can you:

Fill in the Consultation (We've provided 2 suggestions on how to approach it)
Email your MP and send them the link to this briefing
Follow-up with your MP

The Un-numbered Question

Whichever approach you choose, we think you must enter a 'somewhat agree' response to the first question, which is un-numbered. We think this may be a 'filter' question; and by answering 'somewhat agree' they will be obliged to read the rest of your submission, rather than discarding it on a 'disagreed' basis.

This is a loose suggestion. Please don't copy it; your own words and why you're concerned ('as a parent' etc) are vital here.

Q. Do you agree or disagree that the Government should intervene to end conversion therapy in principle?

A. Whilst I somewhat agree that the government should intervene to end conversion therapy in principle, by including gender identity ('being transgender'), this policy risks having the opposite effect to its intention, because it is logically impossible for someone to be converted from something that doesn't exist - there is no definition of 'gender identity' in law, or science, or fact. Feeling that one is the opposite sex is a symptom of gender dysphoria, which needs to be thoughtfully explored , not validated and affirmed.

I am concerned this bill will lead to more children being told there is something wrong with them and that they need to be converted through hormonal treatment and physical surgeries. I am also concerned about the lack of evidence that conversion therapy is really happening in the UK today; as the government's own report seems to point to a vanishingly small number of cases. I feel the gender identity issue should be removed from the conversion therapy bill (leaving the LGB only), or in fact you should wait until the results of the Cass Review are fully understood.Fill in the Consultation

1. Abridged
When you've entered the answer to the un-numbered question, there is one more question that is vitally important and should be answered - 'Strongly Disagree'.

Question 2

'The Government considers that delivering talking therapy with the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation or changing them from being transgender or to being transgender either to someone who is under 18, or to someone who is 18 or over and who has not consented or lacks the capacity to do so should be considered a criminal offence. The consultation document describes proposals to introduce new criminal law that will capture this. How far do you agree or disagree with this?'

Inspiration for answer (reproduced by courtesy of Sex Matters). Please do not copy this wholesale.
The government is right to want to protect therapists and other healthcare staff who are providing legitimate support to children with gender dysphoria, but it is not clear how this legislation will do that.

The proposed approach to protecting therapists depends on a child or vulnerable person presenting as “questioning”. If a child or vulnerable person identifies as transgender, therapists could be threatened with criminal penalties if they do not affirm this identity, and fewer would be willing to work with children with gender issues.
Social transition often comes before a child has had any formal assessment or therapy, and is a significant step. Schools are making the decision to transition children, often without parental consent. The proposed legislation would threaten schools, teachers, youth workers and others who work with children if they don't agree to affirm children as the opposite sex.

2. Full version
For inspiration, you might like to refer to this advice from our friends at Transgender Trend , or this advice from Sex Matters . Good luck!

Once you've filled it in
2. Email your MP and send them the link to this briefing . if you prefer to attach a pdf, we have produced one without CfW branding that you can download, the link is here .

3. Phone your MP, or better still, get an appointment with them to confirm they've received the briefing and ask their thoughts on it. Phoning to confirm receipt is the only way in some cases that the assistants will make sure to pass on your email.

Or, attend a surgery. If you are able, it would be great if you could speak to your MP at one of their local surgeries, these are likely to be under-booked in the run-up to Christmas. MPs need to give you ten minutes of face-to-face time if you have made the effort to attend their surgery. We recommend you print out our briefing, talk them through it, and leave it with them to share with colleagues!

Conversion Therapy Consultation Call-To-Action

Wed, 01 Dec 2021 19:25:33 GMT

Conversion Therapy Ban: the Conservatives’ New Section 28?

Written by Caroline ffiske. Published 2 December 2021.

The Conservative Government is proposing to ban 'conversion therapy'. A rushed six-week consultation ends December 10 2021, with legislation planned for Spring 2022. The proposal is dangerous. It extends the definition of ‘conversion therapy’ to cover talking therapy with young people who ‘identify’ as transgender. This will make it harder for expert adults to explore, challenge, and support these young people without fearing the risk of prosecution. This will ruin young lives.

There is an upsurge in young people, particularly girls, often same-sex attracted, on the autistic spectrum, with health or home problems, who are persuaded they were were ‘born in the wrong body’. They become convinced they are ‘trans’; or have an ‘inner gender identity’ different to their sex ‘assigned at birth’.
If adults ‘affirm’ them in this identity, some will go on to puberty blockers, which almost always leads to cross-sex hormones. This will eventually sterilise them; impair their adult sexual function and pleasure; impact bone and brain development; make them medical patients for life. Girls might have their breasts cut off. Boys might get ‘surgical holes’ which will need manual dilation for life.

We risk healthy kids becoming life-long medical patients, stunted and sterilised, because they got caught up in a social media craze - and then the Conservative Government made caring for them harder.

The Government’s proposed legislation risks criminalising expert adults who work with these young people. It will criminalise talking therapies that explore this socially-contagious currently-fashionable tragedy. We are not exaggerating. From the Government Equalities Office website :

“Consultation questions on the proposal for targeting talking conversion therapy:

Question 2. The government considers that delivering talking conversion therapy with the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation or changing them from being transgender or to being transgender either to someone who is under 18 , or to someone who is 18 or over and who has not consented or lacks the capacity to do so should be considered a criminal offence . The consultation document describes proposals to introduce new criminal law that will capture this. How far do you agree or disagree with this?”

Is this the Conservative Government’s new Section 28?

A significant proportion of young people caught up in gender ideology are same-sex attracted. Do we want to sterilise gay children , encourage the slippery slope towards the amputation of their sex organs? Medicalise them for life? Do we want to ‘change their gender’ to make them ‘straight’? Because that’s where this legislation heads.

The hard truth behind this trend:

USA: ‘My once beautiful daughter is now 19, homeless, bearded, in extreme poverty, sterilized, not receiving mental health services, extremely mentally ill, & planning a radial forearm phalloplasty (a procedure that removes part of her arm to construct a fake penis ).’

Sweden: ‘After 4 years on blockers 'Leo' hasn't grown, has osteopenia, spinal fractures and is in constant pain. 12 children in Stockholm have 'healthcare-acquired injuries' from blockers’. Watch here .

USA: ‘During my own transition, I had seven surgeries. I also had a stress-induced heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection due to using the wrong skin during a (failed) phalloplasty, 16 rounds of antibiotics, (only partially successful) arm reconstructive surgery, permanent lung and heart damage, a cut bladder, insomnia-induced hallucinations—oh and frequent loss of consciousness due to pain from the hair on the inside of my urethra .

UK detransitioner : ‘I don't know if I'll ever fully get over what transition did to me but I'm hopeful. Sometimes I feel like I have, but it's so hard to ignore the permanent effects. I'll live with them until the day I die. I'll never fully accept that I was aided by clinicians to do this’.

Keira Bell : ‘By the time I got to the Tavistock, I was adamant that I needed to transition. It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. What was really going on was that I was a girl insecure in my body who had experienced parental abandonment, felt alienated from my peers, suffered from anxiety and depression, and struggled with my sexual orientation. After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy.

The consequences of what happened to me have been profound: possible infertility, loss of my breasts and inability to breastfeed, atrophied genitals, a permanently changed voice, facial hair. When I was seen at the Tavistock clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body. But it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery.’

Is this the future we want for our gay kids, our autistic kids, our vulnerable kids, our kids who don’t conform to sex stereotypes, our kids just trying to fit in and who get caught up in a social media craze, and who see a route to social acceptance and status?

Nobody is born in the wrong body. Nobody deserves to be caught up in this craze - then have the

responsible adults turn away, afraid to help, criminalised for caring.

The Government must pause the process:

Wait for outcomes of the Cass Review which explores trans-identification in young people.
Limit meaning of ‘conversion therapy’ to apply to lesbian and gay conversion only.
Do not let the nebulous nonsense of ‘inner gender identity’ anywhere near our law.
‘Transgender’ has no scientific, biological, legal or clinical definition. It should not be written into law.

****************************

Mark Jenkinson MP writes for ConHome .

Gary Powell, Conservative Activist writes for Lesbian&GayNews

A briefing from Maya Forstater and Sex Matters

A briefing from TransgenderTrend .

Maya Forstater writing in ConHome :

If you read one more thing: The Mental Health Establishment is Failing Trans Kids

For more information contact info@conservativesforwoman.org

Download this briefing, unbranded, as a 2-page printable pdf for your MP

Download this briefing, branded CfW with QR code printable pdf

The Government’s defence of its transgender prison policy is weak and ill-informed

Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:21:48 GMT

Stonewall has left the Ministry of Justice but the Ministry of Justice has not left Stonewall

Written by Caroline ffiske. Published 25 November 2021.

Last week, in the House of Lords, there was a debate about the Government's prison policy which allows men who identify as transgender to be placed in women's prisons. This includes male prisoners who have obtained a gender recognition certificate as well as other male prisoners who claim to ‘identify as female’. Placement into the women's estate is automatic for those with a GRC. It is assessed on a case by case basis for other trans-identifying men. The policy was last updated and signed off by a Conservative Minister in January 2020.

The debate about this policy took place because Lord Blencathra moved an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. While the amendment was withdrawn at the end of the debate, it facilitated two important outcomes. Firstly, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice, Lord Wolfson invited interested Lords to "a teach-in from officials, who will be able to provide noble Lords with information and explain how [the policy] works". Secondly, it provided a public and detailed explanation of how the Conservative Government justifies the prison policy in its current form.

The justification, presumably provided by Ministry of Justice officials, as set out here by Lord Wolfson, is weak and ill-informed.

Firstly, Lord Wolfson emphasised that the policy is driven by compliance with the law. He said "Our policy is not driven by ideology; it is driven by compliance with the law of the land". He also said "I suggest to the Committee that that policy is correct in law...". Now anyone not familiar with the law in this arcane area would surely assume upon reading this that there must be a legal requirement for trans-identifying male prisoners to be placed in women's prisons. Well that is not so. The Ministry of Justice's policy is legal in the sense that it is not illegal.

A different approach would also be legal. It would be possible for the Ministry of Justice to house trans-identifying male prisoners separately from female prisoners by invoking specific clauses in the Equality Act which allow for single sex accommodation and service provision. The Equality Act specifies that single sex accomodation can be justified when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

The Government actively chooses not to invoke these provisions in the Equality Act. Even though they are in the Act for a reason. I would argue that providing single sex spaces for imprisoned women, who have often been at the receiving end of male violence, and who cannot voluntarily opt out or away, should be the exemplary case where these provisions of the Equality Act are invoked. If not this, what? Given the existence of these provisions, I would argue that claiming the government’s position is ‘driven by compliance with the law’ is not just obfuscation, but incorrect.

Secondly, Lord Wolfson spoke about the need to protect people’s rights. He said “The high-level outcomes of the new Policy Framework are intended to strike an appropriate balance, ensuring” first that: “All transgender individuals are managed safely with their rights properly respected and in accordance with the law”. Notice that came first . Did women’s rights come second ? No, they didn’t get a specific mention. I suggest this sums up the problem. No-one has actually properly assessed the impact on women prisoners of forced intimate living alongside male-bodied prisoners. Put yourself in the situation. That’s what we need to do.

Thirdly, I take issue with Lord Wolfson’s over-focus on risk and risk management. For example, he says ‘The amendment … would mean that a prisoner with a GRC would never be held in the part of the prison estate that matched their acquired gender, even though in some cases this would pose a manageable level of risk and would, on balance, be the safest and most appropriate course of action’.

There is the blindspot. This issue is not solely about risk and risk management. We are talking about an environment - women’s prisons - which were intended to be female only - and for good reasons that go beyond risk management. I would like readers to imagine, for example, a woman’s book-club picnic which is interrupted by a prison officer bringing along a trans-identifying male prisoner. Is it okay because there is no risk ? Of course not, the women were planning a women-only event. I would like readers to imagine a public swimming pool's showering room where everyone is instructed to shower in their swimming costumes. A prisoner officer accompanies a trans-identifying male prisoner into the showers. Is it okay because there is no risk ? Of course not, the women were expecting a space free from male presence and male gaze. Let’s imagine now that the trans-identifying male prisoner behaves just a very little bit badly - he leers at the women showering just a very little bit and perhaps comes just a very little bit inappropriately close. Is it okay because there is no risk ? Of course not, the women were expecting a place free from this kind of discomfort.

Surely everyone can see that this is not just about risk management. It is about women’s right to privacy and dignity. It is about women’s right to a simple sense of security that they are in a female only space. You don’t see these wider women-centred concerns making headway into Lord Wolfson’s speech. They are wholly absent. We need to discuss them. The Ministry of Justice’s prison policy needs to reflect them.

Lord Wolfson stated that ‘our policy is not driven by ideology’. I don’t think this stands up to scrutiny. The policy refers to people’s biological sex being ‘assigned to them at birth’. That is ideology.

The policy allows prisoners to ‘self-declare’ that they are transgender and prison staff are then required to use the prisoner’s chosen pronouns: ‘Staff must make every effort to communicate with individuals in ways that respect their gender identity, using appropriate verbal and written communication and use of pronouns’. That is ideology. It is also compelled speech. It might even be illegal, following the Maya Forstater case which protects gender critical views in the workplace.

The policy says ‘All individuals in our care must be supported to express the gender with which they identify’. What does this mean? A male entitlement to perform female stereotypes? I think that is ideology.

Finally, the prison policy purports to outline the legal justification for its position. Have a look at section 4.119 : ‘ Section 9 of the GRA 2004 requires that a person who has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate must be treated in accordance with their acquired gender for all purposes’. That is an incorrect summary of the wider legal position. I quote right back at you: The Equality Act on single sex accomodation ( Schedule 23, 3 ): ‘A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to ... gender reassignment discrimination ... in relation to … the admission of persons to communal accommodation… In relation to gender reassignment, account must also be taken of whether and how far the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. Imagine summarising the relevant legal position that informs a policy and leaving out an important part of the legal position. I think that is ideology.

Stonewall may have left the Ministry of Justice but whoever is briefing Lord Wolfson has not left Stonewall. At the end of his speech, Lord Wolfson invited fellow Lords to ‘a teach-in from officials, who will be able to provide noble Lords with information and explain how it works’. If the noble Lords receive a repeat of the information in Lord Wolfson’s speech that will be inadequate and obfuscatory. Hence, this alternative briefing note.

Noble Lords - and Conservative MPs - need to be aware of the ideological imprint all over the Ministry of Justice's prison policy. They should request a bottom up review of the policy. Such a review must be free of ideology and accurate in statements of the law. At the centre of such a review must be the needs, the safety, and the dignity of women prisoners.

Government gives more money to organisation which promotes gender ideology and slurs women

Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:25:55 GMT

FairPlayforWomen, TransgenderTrend, WomensPlaceUK slurred, but hey ...

Written by Caroline ffiske. Published 17 November 2021.

This week, as part of 'anti-bullying week', the Department of Education announced that a new round of funding, worth over £1 million , had been handed to five organisations to help schools and colleges tackle bullying.

Of course the funding is not really to tackle bullying - it's to promote ideology. The funding will be used to 'promote diversity in children and young people'. 'The latest funding boost will go towards projects and programmes that tackle bullying focused on protected characteristics including LGBT+, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and victims of hate-related bullying'.

Whose activities and ideologies has the Department of Education chosen to promote via this latest round of taxpayer funding? One organisation caught my eye. Equaliteach...

Thanks to the DofE, Equaliteach's reach has now been extended 'to at least 80 schools per year'.

So who is this outfit? Oh, just a group whose output, Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, publicly disowned last year. Equaliteach had produced a document 'Free to Be' whose contents I documented here . As soon as she became aware of the material, Liz Truss, disowned it. She said 'This document was not approved by government. It does not reflect government policy. The GEO logo should not be on it and I have asked for it to be removed'.

Via 'Free to Be' Equaliteach promoted gender ideology to school kids and challenged ‘cis-normativity’. It misrepresented the law and smeared reputable organisations. It suggested schools can hide personal information about primary age children from their own parents. But the Department of Education signs them up again?

Equaliteach introduced primary school children to bodily discomfort and disassociation via the concept of 'gender identity': ‘someone’s innate psychological understanding of themselves as either a man, woman or another identity beyond the man-woman binary [which] may or may not align with their biological sex’.

Equaliteach taught primary school children about confusing new pronouns: ‘Some people are more comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns such as they/their or ze/zir.’

Tackling the issue of whether parents might object to this teaching, Equaliteach said ‘It is also worth remembering, however, that the need for this work is written into law and that however much some parents and carers may object, this work is both a moral and legal duty’. Incorrect and disingenuous. Schools do not have a legal duty to teach kids about cisnormativity, ze/zir, and inner gender identity.

Equaliteach blithely told primary schools that confused young boys should be allowed into girls' changing rooms: ‘transgender young people should have access to the changing room that corresponds to their gender identity’.

According to Equaliteach, teachers should keep secrets from parents. If a child discloses their gender identity, Free to Be said: ‘There is no duty to inform the parents/carers and that the duty of care is to the young person and it is their choice when or whether to come out to their parents/carers’. ‘ If the child is not out at home, care must be taken to ensure that interactions with parents/carers and documents sent home do not use the child’s preferred name .’ This alone is a safeguarding red flag. But it gets worse. Free to Be also suggested that if a child discloses information about his or her sexuality or gender identity, the listener does not need to disclose this to other adults within the school. Just a secret... between an adult and child - in a school setting...

But the most disgraceful part of Equaliteach's output was its smearing of groups established to protect the rights of women and children and who have argued for caution in the promotion of gender identity to our children. Within a red box and with a prominent red ‘Beware!’ sign, Equaliteach said ‘sometimes anti-LGBT+ groups create resources with the aim of undermining rights for LGBT+ people. Such a resource has been created by a group known as ‘Transgender Trend' . . . It is advised to ignore any resources or other communications from this group’. Under the same Beware! sign: ‘The organisations Women’s Place UK and Fair Play for Women have also issued guidance which is inaccurate and confusing about toilet provision in schools.’

Disgraceful and slanderous.

Did Equaliteach learn anything? No - it still makes this material available to schools free-to-download - still slurring Transgender Trend, Women's Place UK, and Fair Play for Women. (Now slightly amended as per screenshot above - original here !)

An organisation's output is disowned by the Minister for Equalities and Women, but it's back! An organisation slurs reputable organisations, but it's back! An organisation produces material containing safeguarding red flags, but it's back! An organisation produces material encouraging bodily disassociation and dysphoria in young people, but it's back! This material could result in the most vulnerable few taking puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and being sterilised, unable to experience sexual pleasure or have children, medicated for life - but it's back! The Department of Education hands it taxpayer funds and invites it into our schools.

Safe Schools Alliance highlights more of Equaliteach's output here .

Another outfit, Diversity Role Models, has also received funding from the DoE in the latest round. It gets boring to repeat . They produce material which breaches the Department of Education's own Relationship and Sex Education teaching guidelines. They suggest that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. They talk about sex being 'assigned at birth'. They advise school staff that 'trans students' should use the toilets and changing rooms according to their gender identity. But the DoE hand out cash - and access to schools - anyway.

Did the Minister for Education, Nadhim Zahawi sign this off? I have to assume not - it was stitched up deep in the bowels of our bloated bureaucracy, captured by gender ideology, and unaccountable to democratic scrutiny.

The promotion of gender ideology via the Department of Education is a safeguarding scandal. It's a crony-funding-sleeze scandal too: who are the bureaucrats funnelling cash to discredited organisations? It's a democratic scandal. Ministers of Education and RSE guidelines have made clear that gender ideology should not be promoted within our schools - yet it continues.

Enough is enough. Conservative MPs need to step up. Sign up more junior Ministers? Get them monitoring departments; scrutinising funding; scouring policies. The promotion of gender ideology to our children, the funding of complicit organisations, must stop.

Do female prisoners have a right to single sex spaces?

Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:17:46 GMT

The era of no debate has ended - let the talking begin!

Written by Caroline ffiske, Published 16 November 2021

Recently I challenged a Conservative MP to defend the Ministry of Justice's prison's policy which allows trans-identifying male prisoners to be housed in women's prisons.

His response? Such a policy has never seen the light of day in a Conservative Manifesto... Such a policy has never been debated in the House of Commons... Such a policy has never been subject to a democratic vote... In effect, it has never been subjected to democratic scrutiny...

In a nutshell: over the issue of whether trans-identifying males should be placed in women's prisons, there has been no debate... Lord Blencathra puts it pithily: 'It is a policy invented by officials that past Ministers have signed off on.'

Well, now, those days are over. Last night, in the House of Lords, Lord Blencathra moved an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill . If adopted, it would provide that 'prisoners with a gender recognition certificate who are suspected or convicted of violent or sexual offences are treated as their sex registered at birth with respect to housing on the prison estate'.

And a debate ensued... The era of no debate is over. Democratic scrutiny has arrived. We must all make sure it is here to stay.

While the whole debate can be found here , we present below, the response to the amendment from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, and the closing words from Lord Blencathra. While the amendment was withdrawn (to enable debate!) Lord Wolfson has invited interested Lords to " a teach-in from officials, who will be able to provide noble Lords with information and explain how it works. I have been able to check and they would be very happy to do that. We will arrange that in the normal way ".

The wording slightly implies a one-way street. Sorry bureaucrats - never again. Thank you noble Lords.

***

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)

My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, perhaps I can begin with two confessions. First, I frequently listen to and discuss issues with people with whom I firmly disagree including, on occasion, Members of your Lordships’ House. Secondly, I do not propose to change that approach.

This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, relates to the management of prisoners who have changed their legal gender by obtaining a GRC—a gender recognition certificate. The effect of the amendment would be that a prisoner with a GRC who is convicted of or on remand for a violent or sexual offence would be, and would have to be, held in a prison matching their sex at birth. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that I and the MoJ take this issue very seriously but, and with no disrespect to any noble Lord whose speech has ranged more widely, we are in Committee on this Bill. I shall confine my remarks to the subject matter of the amendment rather than the broader questions, whether on Stonewall or related topics, interesting and thought-provoking though they were. The Committee will be aware that the MoJ left the Stonewall diversity scheme in June this year, but I reiterate the department’s commitment to diversity in all its diverse forms. Our policy is not driven by ideology; it is driven by compliance with the law of the land and to consider protection for all—I repeat all—the prisoners in our care.

Reference has been made to the 39-page policy. Let me just read what the section under “Outcomes” says:

“The high-level outcomes of the new Policy Framework are intended to strike an appropriate balance, ensuring” first that: “All transgender individuals are managed safely with their rights properly respected and in accordance with the law” and, secondly: “Decisions are informed by all available evidence and intelligence in order to achieve an outcome that balances risks and promotes the safety of all individuals in custodial settings and approved premises. This includes an assessment of risks presented to and by transgender individuals.”

The Committee will have noted the two references to balance in that section, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, two groups—perhaps at least two, I would say—need respect and understanding in prison. I suggest to the Committee that that policy is correct in law and, I believe, in principle too. With all due deference to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I suggest that it is morally correct as well.

This is about legality, safety and dignity, so in answer to the point put to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, no: the world has not gone mad and it is a gross mischaracterisation of government policy to suggest that I or the Government have “no qualms” about letting rapists share living quarters with women. I assume that point was put because the noble Baroness does not understand what the policy is, so let me explain the actual policy to her and to the Committee.

The policy is that transgender prisoners are allocated to a prison matching their legal gender but can be held in a prison opposite to their legal gender where they would otherwise present an unmanageable level of risk to other prisoners. The current policy therefore allows for prisoners with GRCs to be held in a prison matching their sex at birth, where that is appropriate. I can therefore confirm, because I have had this checked, that contrary to the position set out by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, there are trans women with GRCs who are now housed in the male estate following the risk assessment process.

The critical point, as pointed out first, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and then adopted by others, is that that policy differs from that suggested by the amendment because the current policy is not a blanket approach. The amendment is a one-size-fits-all approach, or a blunt instrument, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, put it. We manage prisoners with GRCs on a case-by-case basis. That is absolutely right, because we want to make sure that there are no assaults in any prison by any prisoner on any other prisoner or, of course, on a member of staff.

The amendment would end the balanced approach. It would mean that a prisoner with a GRC would never be held in the part of the prison estate that matched their acquired gender, even though in some cases this would pose a manageable level of risk and would, on balance, be the safest and most appropriate course of action. It would lead to a prisoner with a GRC having to be kept in a prison that matched their sex at birth, even when that posed an unmanageable level of risk, which would be an utterly bizarre conclusion. It would mean, for example, that a prisoner who had transitioned from female to male and had obtained a GRC would be kept in a women’s prison, even if that posed an unmanageable level of risk to the women they were in prison with. We are very conscious, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out, that women in prison are especially vulnerable. This amendment, I am sure unintentionally, might expose them to greater danger.

It is simply not possible to argue that holding transgender prisoners with GRCs in a prison matching their sex at birth is always necessary and proportionate in every instance. By far the better policy is the policy we adopt, which is to look at matters on a case-by-case basis. I also point out that the amendment applies only to prisoners with GRCs, which most transgender prisoners do not have.

Before I sit down, I will pick up two further points—first, the point from my noble friend Lady Meyer on Amendment 292G. I see that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford has come into the Chamber. I think that she or another member of the Home Office team will have the delight of dealing with that amendment on a future occasion and I do not want to steal her thunder on that this evening.

My noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said “talk to us”. I started by saying that I am always happy to talk to everyone, and I mean that. However, on this issue, when the most important information to provide is how the policy is operated, I suggest with respect to noble Lords that perhaps the best way forward might be to replicate something we did on the Domestic Abuse Bill and have what I think I called a teach-in from officials, who will be able to provide noble Lords with information and explain how it works. I have been able to check and they would be very happy to do that. We will arrange that in the normal way.

With that explanation of government policy and the offer of the teach-in, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Blencathra (Con)

My Lords, it is customary for every Peer who has moved an amendment to say that it has been a worthwhile debate. I genuinely think it has been a worthwhile debate because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, this subject has not been properly debated in this House or in Parliament before. It is a policy invented by officials that past Ministers have signed off on. It is certainly worthy of debate.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the reason so many men spoke is that so many noble Baronesses who normally sit behind her are afraid to speak on this issue. They have spoken to me privately, as have some on the Lib Dem Benches and the Cross Benches, and said, “Please raise this issue; we dare not speak out.” That is not right. It should be possible for noble Baronesses on all sides to raise this issue of women’s rights.

In some ways there has been a certain degree of consensus on three issues. There is agreement that, first, the rights of transgender prisoners must be protected; secondly, that the rights of women prisoners must be protected; and thirdly, that my amendment is a blunt instrument that fails in certain aspects and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, that I ought not to bring it back on Report. I think that, with proper discussion, I will need to bring back a radically revised amendment on Report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for suggesting that we need to get the balance of rights correct.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that the numbers are small, but I dismiss the view that because the numbers are small this does not matter so much. The number of transgender women in prison may be small, but the fear they create in the women’s estate is quite considerable. This is about not just the number of attacks that have happened but the fear women have of being attacked. Their rights need to be defended too. I would welcome dialogue with the Minister, my noble friends and noble Lords opposite on getting that balance right.

Since the numbers are small, why can we not have special units for men who identify as women so that they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly pointed out, forced into the male estate where they would be victims of violence in some cases, or into the women’s estate where women fear, rightly or wrongly, that they will be attacked? Since we already have some specialist units, can we not have units for men who identify as women so that they can have their own accommodation with their own like kind, people who also want to identify as women?

I urge the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to read what I said very carefully. I did not accuse transgender women of being a threat to women or children. I quoted the case of one man who was a rapist and raped children and who, after he went to prison, decided that he wanted a GRC and to identify as a woman. That is a totally different case from what the noble Lord inadvertently suggested I said.

On this occasion, I intend to withdraw this amendment, but I would like to pick this up with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Cormack and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, if she is permitted to do so, and discuss an amendment which would try to get the balance of rights right, so that we protect women and transgender women and so that each can feel safe in their own prison space. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.'

Amendment 214 withdrawn.

Miriam Cates MP calls time on the promotion of gender ideology in schools

Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:34:56 GMT

"I appreciate that the Minister has agreed to meet me to discuss this issue".

Miriam Cates MP used the House of Commons debate on Schools-based Counselling Services to call time on the promotion of gender ideology in schools. The relevant part of her speech is presented below and can be listened to here . ( Debated Tuesday 29 November 2021)

"I want to raise what I think is a very dangerous potential safeguarding issue that we are seeing in this area right now. Schools are inviting outside organisations in to provide counselling-type services and using their materials. Groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids are teaching what I think are dangerous and contested, extreme ideologies that do not have a basis in science to our children, and it is contrary to DFE guidance. We have groups such as the Allsorts Youth Project, which is teaching children that there are more than two sexes, and the Diversity Role Models group, which comes into school and provides workshops but tells children that their sex was assigned to them at birth. I have seen a video today by the Free to Be group telling teachers that they might drive children to suicide if they do not accept this ideology. And we have Stonewall wrongly interpreting the Equality Act 2010 in a way that erodes the sex-based rights particularly of girls, in a way that I think is very dangerous.

I know of children who have been counselled by adults in school that they would be happier if they changed their gender, and frighteningly, they are being told not to tell their parents and to keep this a secret. I know of schools where children are disciplined for complaining about children of the opposite sex being allowed to use their PE changing rooms. I think this pushing of an extreme ideology that does not have a basis in science and is highly contested is having terrible consequences, and teachers and pupils are afraid to speak out.

In 2009, 72 children were referred to the Tavistock’s gender identity service. In 2019, 2,364 children, of which two thirds were girls, were sent to the service. That is a 5,000% increase in the number of girls sent to the clinic in just 10 years. Many of them go on to be prescribed puberty blockers, and research suggests that 98% of those children are then given cross-sex hormones. These are children who will become infertile, sterile and have permanent loss of sexual function. How can 12, 13 or 14-year-olds consent to that? Many of these children have complex mental health issues. Many are autistic and many have difficult family backgrounds. Some are same-sex attracted, but are being told that they should change their gender. I am afraid that that is a consequence of a harm being done to our children as a direct result of this agenda being pushed in schools contrary to DFE guidance, which states: “You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender”. The guidance goes on to talk about what material can and cannot be used.

I appreciate that the Minister has agreed to meet me to discuss this issue. Absolutely, we need counsellors to be available in school and we need more focus on wellbeing and emotional health. However, we must have a robust safeguarding process to ensure that the adults who go into schools and the materials they use are registered, approved and in line with DFE guidance, and that they are doing the best for our children, encouraging their wellbeing and not pushing their own agenda. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to ensure the guidance is followed and I appreciate his offer to meet me."

The BBC's Style Guide bakes in bias - and gender ideology

Mon, 08 Nov 2021 12:33:26 GMT

Until the guide is changed, the BBC's new drive for 'fair, accurate, and unbiased reporting' will fail

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for 8 years. Published 8 November 2021. She tweets at @carolinefff

The BBC has recently announced ‘ sweeping changes ’ to ensure that its reporting and content are ‘fair, accurate, and unbiased’. It has produced a ten point plan focused on ‘impartiality, editorial standards and whistleblowing’. The BBC has described these efforts as the ‘biggest and most significant push to ensure its programmes and content are fair, accurate and unbiased and truly reflect the broad public which it serves’.

This is to be greatly welcomed. One area where BBC bias, ideological capture even, has been most evident, is in its egregious promotion of gender ideology. The most shameful examples have been materials targeted at children - for example, the notorious ‘classroom resource’ teaching children that there are ‘ over a 100 genders ’. When anyone complained, the BBC doubled-down .

But more recently, perhaps as part of the newly announced 'significant push', there have been long overdue signs of change. First, it was the Stephen Nolan podcasts drawing attention to the internal influence of Stonewall. Imagine working for the BBC and having to sit through training about the ‘ genderbread person ’ - which promotes fake science, and feeling unable to challenge this nonsense.

Then we had the expose from Caroline Lowbridge about how some young lesbians have faced pressure to have sex with trans-identifying males . Kathleen Stock has also recently been interviewed on BBC Women's Hour by Emma Barnett with a follow-up BBC report .

However, if the BBC is actually serious about producing content that is ‘fair, accurate, and unbiased’ it needs to review its ‘Style Guide’. This bakes gender ideology and bias right into the language of the BBC. As long as this stays, bias stays. You can see the relevant parts here following 'g for gender'.

What is so shocking is the way that our language, the shared meaning of important words and the underlying information they convey, is so casually over-ridden. With respect to the use of pronouns, the style guide says: ' Where possible, use the term/s and pronoun/s preferred by people themselves, when they have made their preferences clear.' ‘Transgender, or trans, is a good umbrella term for a person whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth’.... ‘Use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question’.

Just like that, the BBC pushes aside established language usage - and discards the pursuit of accuracy and truth. If a man decides he wants to be referred to as a woman, then the BBC will refer to him as a woman. The public will effectively be told he is a woman. Our shared language, evolved over millennia to accurately transmit important information, is summarily dismissed. The BBC will willingly broadcast information that intentionally misleads.

The BBC insults women by refering to this rapist as ‘she’. The BBC insults women by refering to this rapist as ‘she’. The BBC hides the truth about this man from its audience here . Gaslighting women’s perception about who is responsible for violent crime undermines women’s intuition. Women’s intuition about who they need to be careful around helps to keep them safe. Your daughter will hesitate when a man steps into the small enclosed bathroom if she has been told by her woke university room-mates - and also the BBC - that you are who you say you are. But she shouldn’t hesitate - she should get out. Thanks Aunty.

Moving from the offensive, to the ridiculous, the BBC has got into a muddle over ‘non-binary’. ‘ Non-binary is an adjective used to describe a person who does not identify as only male or only female, or who may identify as both. It is increasingly common for non-binary people to use the singular pronoun “they”. Obviously, we should not ascribe a gender to someone non-binary. ’

My highlighting…

It’s hard to find the words to describe the gullibility and kowtowing on display here. Announcing that you are non-binary does not do away with your sexed reality. Our sexed reality matters in life, law, and public broadcasting. People shouldn’t be working at the BBC if they are not interested in challenging new orthodoxies and pursuing the truth.

The BBC spots that it’s caught up in an ideological tangle which those of us who pay for it will not understand. So...: ‘ we may need to explain any use of “they” as a singular pronoun to the audience for clarity. This could be without explicitly mentioning their gender, however (eg: [First name surname] - who uses "they" and "them" as personal pronouns - is…).’

So that’s the BBC talking aloud about how to hide the sex of people it's telling news stories about. Someone has persuaded the BBC to participate in the fantasy that our sex, our physical reality, is irrelevant to our shared stories. Nonsense. We want to know that it is a man who has raped or killed. We want to know when, exceptionally, it is a woman who has committed a heinous crime. We want to know that a man has become the director of a multi-national organisation. We want to know when, exceptionally, a woman has done the same. We want to know when a little boy or a little girl has done something wonderful. No-one cares much what a de-sexed young person has achieved.

As part of the BBC’s announced ‘sweeping changes’, gender ideology must be swept out of the BBC. Yet until the style guide is changed, bias and ideology remain hard-baked into the BBC. The current Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, is a person with a uterus and uses ‘she / her’. Tim Davie is the Director-General of the BBC. Tim has a penis and goes by he / him. Dorries should point Davie to the ideological nonsense in his style guide, and point out how it makes for clumsy story-telling, while also distorting science and hiding the truth. If he also has balls, he’ll agree with her, and finally sweep gender ideology from the BBC.

When given the chance, the EHRC has endorsed Stonewall and failed women

Wed, 03 Nov 2021 11:48:22 GMT

The Equality and Human Rights Commission remains captured by gender ideology

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for 8 years. Published 3 November 2021. She tweets at @carolinefff

Last week the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that it remains captured by gender ideology.

The EHRC announced that it has signed a legal agreement with Jaguar Land Rover to improve Jaguar's ‘policies and practices in relation to equality and diversity’. ‘Jaguar Land Rover have agreed to develop an action plan to prevent future breaches of equality law and we will monitor the action plan to ensure these actions are completed within the agreed timescales’.

This arises from a case brought against Jaguar by a trans-identifying employee in late 2020. The case illustrates what companies - and fellow employees - must now wrestle with when confronted by adherents to gender ideology. Maya Forstater wrote about the case here . I quote from her but encourage you to read her full piece.

'Sean Taylor had worked at Jaguar Land Rover as an engineer for 20 years. He was based at Gaydon – a complex with some 13,000 staff... In March 2017 Taylor told HR that he was transgender... He said he wished to dress in a male style on some days and a female style on others...'

The case against Jaguar revolved around toilet use and interpersonal interactions which Taylor interpreted as harrassment.

Regarding toilet usage 'On 24 May 2017 Taylor met with his manager ... [who said] that Taylor should use the disabled toilets... On 19 September 2017 Taylor sent an email to a manager, saying: “I don’t know what toilet to use, I raised this three times with no progress over six weeks. I spoke to HR twice about moving as part of the transition at work, but this was ignored.”.. On 11 October 2017, in a grievance meeting, Taylor again raised the toilet issue, saying: “I am transgender, and I struggle with what toilet I should use…I understand it is difficult to resolve but I am not having any feedback and who will fix it?”... Finally... there were a series of discussions between local management and HR, and it was decided to allow Taylor to use whatever toilets he wanted on any given day:..'

Let it sink in that the Employment Tribunal was not satisfied with Taylor being given full access to the female toilets. It said that Jaguar should have put in place measures to ‘prevent her having to deal with challenges over the toilets she was using’. (Please note that Taylor continued to use his male name throughout this whole period.)

The judgement also concluded that Taylor had been subjected to harassment. A sample of interactions:

A male colleague: “In Gaydon today and noticed the great outfit”.
A male colleague: “Are you not fem today?” He went on to say that he had trans and lesbian friends and that the Claimant was “very brave”.
A female colleague: “I was checking out your dress, saw it was you and my jaw dropped”.
A male colleague: “How do you get around in them? It looks hard work.” [presumably referring to shoes]
A female colleague: “It’s nice to see you here in your attire. You have cracking legs”.

There were some hurtful comments and banter: ‘The trans community ought to be grateful. Some of their antics have nearly damned near turned me TERF.’

The Employment Tribunal called these comments “a sustained course of wholly unacceptable harassment in the workplace”. One wonders how work colleagues are supposed to react to a colleague 'transitioning' after 20 years. Is the only risk-free option silence? And what if a woman objects to a man in the women's loos? Is she allowed to speak? Or would that risk her, her job?

The full judgement can be read here .

Well now Jaguar has reached a legal agreement with the EHRC over how to improve its policies and practices. This is important because there have been very significant developments that should bear on the agreement. I was keen to see the EHRC embrace them to provide guidance for all employers - and fellow employees, including gender critical women.

With respect to toilets, the Equality Act is clear that the provision of single sex facilities is legitimate if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. While Stonewall and other gender-ideology lobby groups have sought to undermine employers’ confidence in invoking these clauses, Liz Truss, has made clear she wants single sex spaces protected. The Government has also specifically confirmed that it will require office spaces and public buildings to maintain single sex toilets .

So when the EHRC puts out a press release covering this very issue you’d expect to see clear confirmation that employers, including Jaguar, can (must?) provide single sex spaces. What did it say? Absolutely nothing .

Secondly, we have had the Maya Forstater case which has protected gender critical beliefs in the workplace. So here was the chance for the EHRC to provide examples, for all employers as well as Jaguar, of how these beliefs can legitimately be expressed in the workplace. For example, how should a female Jaguar employee have raised concerns about Taylor's access to the women's toilets? We need to know. Again, from the EHRC, absolutely nothing .

Instead, the EHRC is proud to share that Jaguar remains signed up to Stonewall. 'A spokesperson for Jaguar said “Since 2017 we have made good progress on our Diversity and Inclusion initiatives including launching our PRIDE employee network and achieving ongoing annual improvements in our Stonewall Workplace Equality Index rating”'.

The EHRC is uncomfortable acknowledging that we all have a birth sex. “Ms Taylor had worked at Jaguar Land Rover for almost 20 years as an engineer and had previously presented as male, before coming out as gender fluid or non-binary. She now identifies as a woman”. No EHRC - he was a male. Also - you can't just ' identify ' as a woman. The EHRC cheerfully undermines basic science and established language.

Then the EHRC shares a blog by its ominously titled ‘Head of Enforcement’ Jenine Gill. Forstater gets a mention ! ‘Whilst the freedom to hold a ‘gender critical’ belief is protected by law, this does not mean that trans people can be subjected to discrimination and harassment’. At last - here comes the guidance on how this can be navigated - from the organisation paid millions to provide us with this guidance... No - absolutely nothing...

Gill's blog points companies to publications to help them navigate their ‘equalities’ obligations. The glossary to one explains that we have Self-ID in this country: ‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. No legal or medical process is required ’. This is being circulated by the EHRC now. I despair.

The Jaguar case is the perfect example of how gender ideology threatens women's rights, including our right to single sex spaces and to free speech. Recently, there have been very significant developments in both of these areas in policy and in case law - developments that balance protected characteristics and protect women's rights. The Jaguar case handed the EHRC the perfect opportunity to explore these developments and to illustrate how they can be baked into workplace practices across the country. This is what women are desperately waiting for - women who are afraid of losing their jobs simply for speaking the thruth and defending their rights. Employers are waiting too. The EHRC failed at this task.

Is the EHRC currently fit for purpose? From me, it’s a no.

Another violent man destined for women's prison?

Mon, 01 Nov 2021 11:25:53 GMT

Evidence is mounting that the Gender Recognition Act needs to be reviewed and tightened.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for 8 years. Published 1 November 2021

A recent news story from a regional newspaper illustrates the multiple layers of harm arising from gender ideology.

The Birmingham Mail reports that ‘Kali Gills, 61’ has been jailed after using ‘’considerable force’ to cause an irreversible life-changing injury, to a friend. Please read the article to get a clear picture of the extraordinary violence of Gill’s attack .

The Mail illustrates the story with a picture of Gills - who is clearly a man. But it tells us that Gills ‘identifies as female’. It uses ‘she’ to describe Gills. This use of language insults women. This is not our horrendous crime.

The Birmingham Mail participates in undermining our language. Language only works because we share an understanding of the meaning of words. We have long understood the meaning of ‘female’ - a women or a girl. ‘She’ also refers to a women or a girl. You can’t ‘identify’ into being a woman or girl. That’s not how concrete nouns work - they are exclusive.

Undermining our language in this way also undermines the safety of women and girls. Extremely violent crimes of this nature are overwhelmingly committed by men. Girls need to know that. Women need to act according to that. The drip drip drip from our press implying that women commit these crimes undermines the safety of women and girls. If your daughter finds herself walking alone through a park at dusk - should she speed up to trail the two women 100 yards ahead of her? Or perhaps not...? Should she hesitate until they, too, have left the park? No. Speed up!

Our trust in the press - which we must be able to rely upon to pursue and report the truth - is also undermined. Ipso - our press regulator - must step up to challenge our media when it misuses language and distorts truth.

According to the Birmingham Mail, Gills has requested a move to a female prison. While I can only assume that the request will be turned down, the fact that such a move is even a possibility shows up the absurdity of the Ministry of Justice’s transgender prison policy. The Equality Act makes clear that single sex spaces are legal where they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Separating vulnerable female prisoners, who have often been at the receiving end of male violence, from the daily, intimate, inescapable, proximity of violent males is the most obvious application of the legitimacy of single sex spaces. The Ministry of Justice last updated it transgender prison policy in 2020. The Conservative Minister who approved the policy could have invoked the Equality Act to confirm the legitimacy of single sex prisons and upheld the safety, dignity, and privacy of female prisoners. He or she chose not to. I wonder how they would defend that decision now. I wonder if Conservative MPs are happy defending it.

Whatever prison Gills goes to, prison staff will be required to refer to him according to his preferred pronouns. This hands power to violent prisoners who can ‘compel speech’ from prison staff. This part of the Ministry of Justice transgender prison policy needs urgent updating following the Maya Forstater case confirming that gender critical views are protected in the workplace.

The Ministry of Justice policy also states that ‘All individuals in our care must be supported to express the gender with which they identify’. ‘All adults … who declare they are transgender must be permitted to present and express themselves in the gender with which they identify (or in a gender neutral way) and provided with access to the relevant facilities list’. ‘Clothing, hair, make-up, prostheses and other accessories may be subject to risk, security and operational assessments which will be discussed at a local transgender case board’. If Gill is entitled to access women’s clothing or accessories while in prison, I hope people can see this for the transgression, the insult to women, that it is. I hope no female prison staff are required to be a part of it. How did we get to here?

The Birmingham Mail states that Gill ‘has requested to move to a female prison, which will be dealt with in the near future as she does not yet have her recognised gender certificate’. If Gill obtains a gender recognition certificate he will be entitled to move to the female prison estate. Let that sink in... The prison service may find ways to deal with this, but by using the same mechanisms as for any other violent / difficult prisoner. Could this case, alongside the Maya Forstater decision, be the trigger that prompts Conservative MPs to demand a review of the Ministry of Justice’s transgender policy? After all, Stonewall has been thrown out of the Ministry so it is back to being democratically answerable...

Finally, going back to Gill’s pursuit of a gender recognition certificate. There appears to be nothing in the Gender Recognition Act precluding someone with a violent past from obtaining a legal gender change. Such a person could ‘become’ female in law, with all the transgressions and demands that that implies. Evidence is surely mounting that the Gender Recognition Act needs to be reviewed and tightened.

Gender ideology is about power

Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:16:16 GMT

"To control language is to have power"

C aroline ffiske writes to the editor of The Lancet objecting to the use of language that dehumanises women. Published 27 September 2021

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my dismay at the latest cover of The Lancet magazine which describes women as 'bodies with vaginas'. The cover seems designed to shock and dismay, reducing women as it does, to mere body parts. If it were just an insult, we would be appalled that the world's oldest and most well-known medical journal would gratuitously insult half the population. However, we know that the cover is not intended as an insult: rather The Lancet is pandering to gender ideology. It's pandering to the idea that we all have gendered souls; and that 'how we self-identify' is more important for how we live our lives and organise our world, than biological sex. It's pandering to the idea that not all 'bodies with vaginas' belong to women. Gender ideology is immensely harmful. It undermines women's rights, the safety of vulnerable young people, science, language, free speech, and our very understanding of reality. Below I set out the harms done by gender ideology. I wonder which of these you and your readers would disagree with.

1. Gender ideology eliminates the boundaries between the sexes, eroding women's single sex spaces and services. If, as, for example, Stonewall says 'trans women are women' then we might as well drop the 'trans'. Anyone is a woman who says they are a woman. At a stroke, this eliminates the boundary around spaces that have been created to keep women safe and maintain dignity and privacy between the sexes. Men can self-identify into women's prisons, refuges, toilets, changing rooms, and hospital wards. If trans women are women, there is also no mechanism whereby women, including elderly and vulnerable women, can request sex-segregated intimate health and social care.

2. Gender ideology is promoted heavily on the internet, in online social forums. Vulnerable teenagers are persuaded that they will find their 'true self', and a resolution to the difficulties in being human, via seeking an 'inner gender identity' unrelated to their biological sex. Then, as they progress to enforcing new names and invented pronouns, they can find themselves at loggerheads with those who love them the most, and provide their best security in the world - their family. Some of these teenagers go on to buy cross-sex hormones online. Some go on to have surgery that renders them medicated and with wider, self-inflicted, medical problems for life, potentially sterile, and without sexual function.

3. Gender ideology undermines the legitimacy of same-sex attraction. Young women and men face being called 'transphobic' if their sexual preference is exclusively for women or men. They're supposed to be open to 'any gender identity'. Men are self-identifying into spaces created by and for lesbian women. Gender ideology leaves these women powerless to object.

4. If trans women are women, that is the end of sex-segregated sport. Globally, we already see an emerging pattern of men self-identifying into women's sports and taking prizes.

5. Gender ideology attacks free speech. Because of its flimsy unscientific foundations (biological sex is binary and immutable, and there is no science behind the idea of an 'inner gender identity') it relies on an ongoing attack on free speech to maintain its ascendancy. The flimsy foundations must not be challenged because they will be exposed in all their emptiness. People can now be reported to their local police for 'hate' if they point out the truth.

6. We are drifting towards 'compelled speech'. Women have been instructed in Court to refer to violent males as 'she'. Prison officers are informed that they should use female pronouns for a male criminal who requests it.

7. Gender ideology undermines the integrity of the press. Newspapers print stories that are literally not true. (Lies?) We now read newspaper stories about violent and sexual crimes committed by women. It turns out these crimes have been committed by men. This changes our perception, our understanding, of our world. This is dangerous for women and for younger people, learning to navigate the world. How do they feel, when they discover our newspapers literally publish false stories? And isn't a young women's safety compromised if she hesitates as she walks through a park at dusk - should she walk quickly to catch up with the woman in front... - or perhaps not?

8. We are eroding the integrity of statistics and data gathering. Until it was challenged in Court, the Office of National Statistics planned for the 2021 Census to allow people to record their sex according to 'gender' markers on documents such as passports. How many people in this country even know that you can change your passport to record your gender identity, not sex?

9. Gender ideology erodes the integrity of science. Biological sex is binary and immutable. We know this, but we are denying it. There is no science behind the concept of a gendered soul. Foundational scientific knowledge and the integrity of science and science journals is being undermined.

10. Gender ideology undermines shared language. Woman is the word we share for an adult human female. Yet people who should know better; reputable publications, shy away from the word. This slowly undermines one of our most foundational human attributes: our ability to share language and communicate.

11. Gender ideology undermines reality. We can accurately sex each other within seconds. This really matters for women’s safety - and our broader elementary understanding of who we are with at any given time. Gender ideology wants us to distrust our very senses.

12. Gender ideology undermines our democracy. No democratic remit said yes to men self-identifying into women's prisons, or yes to the 2021 Census attempting to undermine the concept of biological sex, or yes to police forces recording our online discussion about sex and gender as hate, or yes to schools introducing mixed sex toilets, or to any of the above.

These are the reasons that women are annoyed to see a cover of The Lancet 'disappearing' the word 'woman'. I hope you will agree that we are not over-reacting.

Caroline ffiske

The Women and Equalities Select Committee remains determined to insult women and undermine reality

Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:09:30 GMT

Imagine a future when WESC has won. ‘Women’ is OLDSPEAK

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for 8 years. Published 24 September 2021

The Women and Equalities Commons Select Committee remains determined to insult women and undermine reality. Really it should be renamed. The Gender Ideology Promotion Panel? Perhaps it could set targets. More vulnerable young people with damaged bodies and medicated for life? Year on year increases in the number of men who win women's sporting trophies? The eradication of all knowledge relating to the binary and immutable nature of biological sex from school textbooks?

How anyone supports gender ideology is beyond me. Yet here we are. The Women and Equalities Select Committee. Right at the heart of our government and democracy. Cross Party. ( Committee membership for your letter-writing here .)

WESC has decided to hold a consultation on how women experiencing menopause are supported in the workplace. But have you spotted my thoughtcrime?

It's not just women who menstruate!

No - "MPs on the Women and Equalities Select Committee have recently started investigating the way women and people who experience menopause are supported in the workplace ".

Click through to fill in their survey:

"What is your sex?" Options: Male, Female, Prefer Not to Say.

Followed by:

"Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth ?" Options: Yes, No, Prefer to Self-describe. (Even yes and no are too binary now...)

We often hear the argument that ' we all know ' that sex and gender identity are different. We all hear that no-one really denies the reality of biological sex which is binary, immutable, and matters very much, particularly with respect to health and medical care. Meanwhile, gender identity is different: it's self-expression, exploration, liberation, an expression of our human freedom. Sure, great - this could work after all...

But no. That is not what WESC has done here. It hasn't asked the women responding to the survey for their gender identity. That would be bad enough, pushing gender ideology - but then, we’re all non-binary, gender-queer, represented by the rainbow flag now. At least this position would respect science, biology, and medical realities that matter.

No WESC goes further. It asks menstruators for their sex. It must let women declare that they are men, actually male-sexed. It must let men, penis-havers, declare that they menstruate. It must undermine science and deny reality. It must mis-use established language and allow people to declare falsehoods in government surveys.

Nobody benefits from this delusion. Our bodies are sexed at the cellular level. Imagine a time in the future when WESC and gender ideology have won, and the NHS at last understands that sex is not real. Some of us get cancer. It was once understood that there are different cancer treatments for [ OLDSPEAK ] men and woman. Some of these treatments work for [OLDSPEAK] men, but not for women. Some of these treatments work for [OLDSPEAK] women, but not for men. But that all relied on acknowledging OLDSPEAK. Even worse, it involved accepting OLDSCIENCE. But those are thought crimes now.

Oh well. All ideologies have their victims. For the sake of a bright new future, unanchored from ancient truths which kept us all too human, people die.

We stand with Rosie Duffield. Gender ideology is immensely harmful.

Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:35:11 GMT

The Conservative Government needs to come clean on where it really stands

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 21 September 2021.

There has been a lot of press coverage recently about the attacks and abuse that Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, has endured as a result of her stance on science, free speech, and women’s rights . She has been attacked for supporting all three and for remaining sceptical about some of the extreme demands of gender ideology (such as the idea that anyone is a woman who says they are a woman). Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has now joined in the call for more tolerant debate .

To date, the Conservative Party has remained the only major political party even attempting to hold the line against the full impact of gender ideology. See Suzanne Moore’s excellent analysis here: How did the Tories become the only party to protect women?

Therefore it was disappointing to see, earlier this month, a prominent Tory politician, not just endorsing gender ideology, but actually engaging in a public, provocative, attack on Rosie Duffield. Local newspaper, KentOnline, published the attack from Canterbury’s Conservative City Council leader, Ben Fitter-Harding. Fitter-Harding insulted Duffield. He accused her of ‘liking transphobic tweets’. He wrote ‘that this woman in particular... could now inflict such pain ... is something many of us find hard to bear’. Her crime is to support ‘sweeping claims about who can and who cannot be a woman’. According to Fitter-Harding, ‘progress continues, even as people like Ms Duffield attempt to stand in the way’.

These are pretty intolerant comments suggesting there can only be one version of progress - Fitter-Harding’s version. They are melodramatic - that ‘hard to bear’ pain. They are cruel and provocative - accusing Duffield of actually ‘inflicting pain’. They are hypocritical: Duffield isn’t allowed to ‘like tweets’ while Fitter-Harding can be as rude, accusatory, hyperbolic, and dismissive as he likes.

However, the most alarming part of Fitter-Harding’s attack on Duffield is what it says about his adherence to gender ideology. He doesn’t approve of Duffield making ‘sweeping claims about who can and who cannot be a woman’. Is he implying that anyone can be a woman? Or that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman? Or that the word ‘woman’ does not mean what we all thought it meant, only yesterday?

It is concerning to us when people in senior positions in the Conservative Party sign up to gender ideology. This is because of the extraordinary harm it does. Biological sex is binary and immutable - we know that. Pretending that it isn’t, matters. Here is how the biologist Colin Wright phrased it: ‘I’m frequently asked why I focus so much on the nature of biological sex. It’s because in my view this may be reality’s last stand. If this undeniable fact can be denied en masse, then we become hostages to chaos. We simply cannot afford to lose our collective tether to reality.”

At ConservativesforWomen we have repeatedly met with, lobbied, written to, senior figures in the Conservative Party setting out our concerns with gender ideology. I have summarised our concerns, again, below. Each of these concerns is serious in its own right. But brought together, they reveal a dangerous ideology. Ultimately the Conservative Party needs to decide where it stands. Do Tories stand for science, reason, free speech, open debate; and for protecting women rights to single sex spaces and the bodily integrity of vulnerable young people? Or like our other political parties, will it succumb to the aggressive and irrational demands of ideology? Somewhere along the line, the Tories need to decide.

1. Gender ideology eliminates the boundaries between the sexes. If, as, for example, Stonewall says 'trans women are women' then we might as well drop the 'trans'. Anyone is a woman who says they are a woman. At a stroke, this eliminates the boundary around spaces that have been created to keep women safe and maintain dignity and privacy between the sexes. Men can self-identify into women's prisons, refuges, toilets, and changing rooms.

2. If trans women are women, there is no mechanism whereby women, including elderly and vulnerable women, can request sex-segregated intimate health and social care. There is no way to maintain single sex hospital wards.

3. Gender ideology is promoted heavily on the internet, in online social forums. Vulnerable teenagers are persuaded that they will find their 'true self', and a resolution to the difficulties in being human, via an 'inner gender identity' unrelated to their biological sex. Then, as they seek to enforce new names and invented pronouns, they can find themselves at loggerheads with those who love them the most, and provide their only security in the world - their family. Some of these teenagers go on to buy cross-sex hormones online . Some go on to seek surgery that renders them medicated for life, potentially sterile, and without sexual function.

4. Gender ideology undermines the legitimacy of same-sex attraction. Young women and men face being called 'transphobic' if their sexual preference is exclusively for women or men. They're supposed to be open to 'any gender identity'. Men are self-identifying into spaces created by and for lesbian women. Gender ideology leaves these women powerless to object.

5. If trans women are women, that is the end of sex-segregated sport. Globally, we already see an emerging pattern of men self-identifying into women's sports and taking prizes.

6. Gender ideology attacks free speech. Because of its flimsy unscientific foundations (biological sex is binary and immutable, and there is no science behind the idea of an 'inner gender identity') it relies on an ongoing attack on free speech to maintain its ascendancy. The flimsy foundations must not be challenged because they will be exposed in all their emptiness. People can reported to their local police for 'hate' if they point out the truth.

7. We are drifting towards 'compelled speech'. Women have been instructed in Court to refer to violent males as 'she'. Prison officers are informed that they should use female pronouns for a male criminal who requests it and male prisoners have demanded to be searched by female officers.

8. Gender ideology undermines the integrity of the press. Newspapers print stories that are literally not true. (They print lies? - How would you frame it?) We now read newspaper stories about violent and sexual crimes committed by women. It turns out these crimes have been committed by men. This changes our perception, our understanding, of our world. This is dangerous for women and for younger people, learning to navigate the world. How do they feel, when they discover our newspapers literally publish, well, false stories?

9. We are eroding the integrity of statistics and data gathering. Until it was challenged in Court, the Office of National Statistics planned for the 2021 Census to allow people to record their sex according to gender markers on documents such as passports. How many people in this country even know that you can change your gender marker on your passport with ease? (Where was the democratic consensus for this?)

10. Gender ideology erodes the integrity of science. Biological sex is binary and immutable. This basic foundational scientific knowledge is being undermined.

11. Gender ideology undermines shared language - eg the meaning of the word ‘woman’. It literally undermines one of our most foundational human attributes: our ability to share language and communicate.

12. Gender ideology undermines reality. We can accurately sex each other within seconds. This really matters for women’s safety - and just our broader elementary understanding of where are and who we are with at any given time. But we’re supposed to ignore our senses.

13. Gender ideology is undermining our democracy. There is no democratic remit for the aggressive roll-out of gender ideology that continues across our public institutions, under the Conservative Government. No democratic remit said yes to men self-identifying into women's prisons, or yes to the 2021 Census attempting to undermine the concept of biological sex, or yes to police forces recording our online discussion about sex and gender as hate, or yes to schools introducing mixed sex toilets, or to any of the above.

In a nutshell - we stand with Rosie Duffield. We think gender ideology is immensely harmful. The Conservative Government needs to come clean on where it really stands.

If we collectively give in to gender ideology, we bow to power and succumb to bullies.

Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:27:35 GMT

So a big thank you to Kemi Badenoch for keeping a clear head and for listening to all of us. We simply cannot afford to lose our collective tether to reality.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 17 September 2021.

Ex-BBC Journalist, Ben Hunte, has launched an extraordinary attack on Conservative MP, Kemi Badenoch, in her role as Minister of State for Equalities. According to Hunte, he has accessed an ‘audio recording’ from three years ago, taken from Badenoch’s parliamentary offices. He has used it to make a hyperbolic and utterly unsubstantiated attack on Badenoch that surely borders on libellous.

Hunte says Badenoch ‘questioned same-sex marriage’. Gosh - what did she say? According to Hunte, Badenoch said ‘OK well we’ve got gay marriage, and civil partnerships...’ Sorry Ben - is that it? Your big reveal? Are you trying to promote truth and tolerance here - or the opposite?

Hunte says Badenoch ‘mocked LGBTQ rights’. I’ve read Hunte’s supposed expose ten times and I can’t find the mocking. She uses the term ‘transsexual’. According to Hunte this is now outdated. So is her crime a ‘thought crime’? Is Hunte an arm of the ‘speech police’? Who made the rules?

Arthur Miller and The Crucible comes to mind: “Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God's fingers? I'll tell you what's walking Salem —vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”

Then according to Hunte, Badenoch ‘called trans women “men”’. Ben - trans women are men. That is the work being done by the word ‘trans’. Humans can’t change sex. Biological sex is binary and immutable.

That’s it! That’s the extent of it. But read Ben’s hyperbolic tweet and supposed expose here along with the unedifying attempts at smear and vengeance from others, including politicians who should very much know better - including Angela Rayner who called Badenoch’s comments... ‘disgusting’....

Is it Badenoch that Hunte and the ‘gender ideology’ lobby are seeking to take down? Or is it all of truth - and actual reality? Why and who benefits?

Guess what? We can be tolerant. We can actually let people live, dress, love, express themselves as they please. Sort of simple? But we can’t change reality. We can’t force our internal realities onto other people. When we try - when we try to force it through, that’s totalitarian. That requires the suppression of science, reality, and truth. That requires the suppression of established language and the actual accuracy of our senses. It also requires trampling over other people’s hard fought for rights. Many women don’t want ‘trans women’ to be able to ‘self identify’ into women’s single sex spaces. Or at least they want to be able to discuss it and be involved in establishing the rules and boundaries. Is that so hard to understand?

Kemi Badenoch is a Minister for Equalities. She has to listen to all parties . She has to seek to balance competing perspectives and competing demands for the recognition of rights and protections. That involves listening not just to LGBTQ lobbyists - who certainly do not represent everyone who is gay or who identifies as trans . It involves listening to women who have fought long and hard for single sex spaces and services. It involves listening to parents whose children have been caught up in ‘gender ideology’ and who now regard themselves as having been born in the ‘wrong body’ and seek solace via a lifetime of medication which might result in their sterilisation and loss of sexual function. It involves listening to gay people who are concerned that young lesbians and gays are most susceptible to being caught up in the narrative that they were born in the wrong body. It involves listening to ‘de-transitioners’ who regret that they got caught up in ‘gender ideology’ and who now face an unknown future in terms of the health implications they’ll have to live with. It involves listening to health practitioners who know that sex matters for lifelong medical care and that there are dangers in the ‘disappearing’ of sex. It involves listening to statisticians and scientists who know that data accuracy disappears if we mix self-expression with statistics. It involves listening to women who have been assaulted by trans-identifying males in women’s prisons. And I could go on.

Huge numbers of people are incredibly grateful to Kemi Badenoch and to Liz Truss for taking the Equalities brief seriously and for not caving to the loud powerful gender ideology lobby. As the biologist, Colin Wright wrote ‘I’m frequently asked why I focus so much on the nature of biological sex. It’s because in my view this may be reality’s last stand. If this undeniable fact can be denied en masse, then we become hostages to chaos. We simply cannot afford to lose our collective tether to reality.”

If we collectively give in to gender ideology, we bow to power and succumb to bullies. So a big thank you to Kemi Badenoch for keeping a clear head and for listening to all of us. We simply cannot afford to lose our collective tether to reality.

This is the Conservative Party’s big opportunity in Scotland

Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:11:08 GMT

#SNPHatesWomen

Written by a Conservative Party member, 18 August 2021

If the Conservatives want to ensure a landslide victory at the next election, and significantly undermine the SNP, they should follow the example of Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife.

Murdo this week took a brave stance on Twitter in response to his constituents raising concerns about the Scottish Government's schools guidance on transgender pupils ("policy capture by the lunatic fringe"):

The schools guidance includes provision for four-year-olds to change their 'gender' without the consent of their parents , completely disregards safeguarding, and is the latest in a long line of SNP policies that are bad for women and children.

You can read the schools guidance here ...

The SNP’s extreme position on gender ideology was well known even before the last election, but the Scottish Conservatives missed the opportunity to counter on this as an election issue that would have secured many thousands of votes, particularly from women.

The opportunity is now even greater. This is the Conservative Party’s big opportunity: the SNP has overreached on this issue; women and parents are furious; the SNP are unfit to govern Scotland.

The Conservatives should make this a key Tory policy in Scotland, and back it up from Head Office: oppose the relentless pursuit of gender ideology.

It might even save the Union, not to mention women and children.

There’s no evidence that conversion therapy for ‘gender identity’ and being ‘trans’ takes place in any UK healthcare settings.

Wed, 04 Aug 2021 14:33:03 GMT

The government must make sure it isn’t included in a draft bill.

Shelley Charlesworth is a former BBC journalist. She writes for the website www.transgendertrend.com and campaigns against the promotion of 'gender identity' ideas in schools and healthcare. Published on 4 August 2021.

The government plans to bring in a legal ban on conversion therapy next year and while Liz Truss and her ministers at the Government Equalities Office have been careful to avoid spelling out exactly what they mean by conversion therapy, the ban’s proponents have been vocal.

Some MPs and LGBT lobby groups want to see a ban on conversion therapy for both sexual orientation and gender identity, in all settings, religious, medical, community and cultural. Labour’s Angela Eagle said during July’s commons debate on Pride Month that she wants to see a bill that “bans conversion therapy without loopholes and without religious exemptions, because religious exemptions and loopholes about trans kids merely create the capacity for a coach and horses to be driven through the ban”.

Such talk of ‘trans kids’ is dangerous nonsense, but it’s used constantly by those arguing for a ban. They conflate being gay with being trans. No treatment or medical intervention is needed to be gay or lesbian and it’s well-known that you can’t change someone’s sexual orientation. But being ‘trans,’ believing you have a ‘gender identity’ that is different to your sex, requires hormonal and surgical treatments that can cause irreversible effects on the body, and put young people onto a lifelong medical path. Gender identity, unlike sexual orientation, is fluid and changeable. The growing numbers of detransitioners like Keira Bell are proof of that.

In addition, there is no standard definition of conversion therapy. The GEO’s own National LGBT survey, the largest and most comprehensive to date, didn’t come up with a definition. And gender identity is even harder to define, relying as it does on unevidenced inner feelings or sex stereotypes.

We know there is no evidence that gender identity conversion therapy, or GICT, is taking place now in the UK in healthcare settings. Even those arguing for a ban on GICT have failed to uncover any examples.

This is why it is so important that if a ban is enacted it protects therapeutic and clinical practitioners. They must be free to treat their trans identifying patients as they would any other patient, with no predetermined diagnosis or outcome in mind. This is crucially important when treating children. We know that the vast majority of cross-sex identifying prepubescent children will grow up to be gay or straight if they are not socially transitioned. The least likely outcome is that they will be trans adults. We also know that teenagers who express a trans identity are likely to be on the autistic spectrum or have experienced trauma or have other mental health conditions. They need to be treated in a holistic way, without gender overshadowing their other issues.

Therapists are already facing obstacles in offering treatment to children with gender issues. James Esse s, a trainee psychotherapist, and experienced Childline volunteer was thrown off his Masters degree course recently and dismissed from his Childline role for expressing the view that children are being rushed into changing their gender. This is a chilling reminder of what could be in store if a ban on GICT is made law.

Therapists now are facing constraints after activists and lobby groups added ‘gender identity’ to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in 2017. This professional practice guide, signed by all the major therapeutic bodies tells therapists they can only affirm, not question, a cross-sex identity .

Prior to draft legislation on a legal ban on conversion therapy, the GEO is holding a public consultation, scheduled for a late September launch. It’s important that any medical or therapeutic bodies or practitioners with knowledge of this area get in touch with the GEO now , so they can become stakeholders in the process and help in the design of the consultation. When the consultation opens as many people as possible, non-professionals, parents, and teachers must respond and let the government know that a law that bans a practice for which there is no evidence would be a bad law.

The real scandal is that a form of conversion therapy is already taking place in UK gender clinics , promoted and amplified by LGBT lobby groups like Stonewall. Groups such as Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence claim that any approach other than complete affirmation of a cross sex identity is harmful. Clinicians fearful of being called transphobic have been silenced. As a result, young people, possibly confused about their emerging same sex attraction find it easier to say they are non-binary or trans. Gender non-conforming girls, the quiet boys who don’t fit the mould, are being told that their likes and interests, how they dress and their hair length determine their gender and that this is more important than biological sex.

Transing the gay away; this is the real conversion therapy.

Schools and Libraries need help in safeguarding children – and this must transcend party politics

Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:01:10 GMT

A parliamentary petition is now seeking a way forward

Susan McDonnell is a wife, mother, and retired teacher. Published on 16 July 2021.

Twitter folk always find it hard to remember that outside the Twittersphere, people lead normal lives, and that in those lives, you don’t expect to see a chap in a rainbow fur monkey suit with bare buttocks swinging a fake penis around to promote reading to children. Even to hardened Twitterites like me, it was a bit of a surprise when, last Saturday, Redbridge Library (run by a Labour Council) posted pictures of just that, saying “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”.

But only a bit of a surprise. For some time, libraries have sought to retain relevance with reluctant readers by focusing on the “fun” aspects of reading, such as Drag Queen Story Hour. Meanwhile schools have also turned to outside agencies, particularly to bolster their LGBTQ+ curriculum, with standalone days spent teaching Relationship & Sex Education (RSE) becoming increasingly popular.

I have an unusual set of perspectives on these issues. For a start, I was, for 14 years, a teacher, including being a pastoral head, before retiring in 2018. Prior to that, I was a solicitor for 14 years, and raised four children alongside those careers. Still more unusually perhaps, for this site, I bring 40 years membership of The Labour Party to my perspective: I am – in its true political sense – a radical feminist, and the material reality of women as a class is fundamental to my socialism. Finally, and probably most unusually of all, I am very happily married to a transwoman.

As such, I retain quite an interest in things related to identity politics and in education. It has not been easy seeing the leader of “my” party announce a commitment to self-ID via Pink News , nor watching women like Rosie Duffield being hounded for stating her belief in the reality of sex. For me, the issue of safeguarding children and protecting women’s rights transcends party politics: this sits at the foundation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs . Indeed, it sits at a level that I never thought I would need to worry about. Checking my privilege is, it turns out, a thing.

As I watched the “Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey” (as it has been dubbed in the press) outstrip the Drag Queens in his dance, a number of strands of thought began to coalesce.

First, I remembered the reaction of charities such as Mermaids to new Department for Education guidance which, in effect, banned the idea of being “born in the wrong body” from being taught in English schools. As a staple of training in all manner of settings had been the Genderbread Person , many had breathed a short-lived sigh of relief.

Then I thought about the fact that, in June, during Pride Month, the DfE promoted materials produced by the LGBT Charity “Just Like Us”. These included a Maths lesson, apparently aimed at 5- and 6-year-olds, which set a trivial mathematical problem amidst a sea of verbiage about non-binary pronouns. As many were quick to point out, this was valueless as a Maths lesson – no child able to read the words was likely to learn anything from solving the arithmetic.

Finally, I remembered the blog I had read a few days previously from Chris Jones, Ofsted’s Head of Corporate Strategy, which, while generally suggesting that RSE was being well delivered had, below the surface, revealed an undercurrent of panic from leaders of schools chosen as examples of good practice.

Jones acknowledged that “the overwhelming majority of schools were asking for much more specific guidance about sexual orientations and gender reassignment”, and in one particularly anguished comment, a secondary head reported they were “… very nervous of other providers. Would love someone to filter this for us instead of finding out the hard way. Someone (a provider) comes in with completely inappropriate tone. I like the idea of having a national standard… These people crop up and get funding from wherever… emailing schools the whole time. There is a place for people with specific skills who can deliver better than the teachers. Would be nice to have a bank that we can dip into that’s already been vetted.”

To most outsiders, it probably seems obvious that that sort of thing should happen anyway. There are about 3,000 secondary schools in England, and about 15,000 primaries. The idea that each of them, not to mention countless libraries and other settings, should be checking who was any good at this sort of thing seems ridiculous. With my teacher hat on, though, I wasn’t surprised: schools spend a lot of their time trying to solve the same problems that other schools also have, with surprisingly little coordination of effort. Moreover, in the past, there were other mechanisms in place, with subject specialists employed by Local Authorities, almost all of whom have disappeared in the last 15 years because of economic pressure and academisation.

RSE is a particular issue here, because not only is the subject matter very political, but it is a rich seam of funding in the third sector, which has boomed over the same period, with LGBTQ+ charities such as Stonewall doing particularly well out of it. The curriculum is very complex, with slight guidance, mentioned in the blog above, and within schools, RSE is rarely accorded the same status as, for instance, English or Maths, so there is unlikely to be a real subject expert in house, with time and a budget to vet materials. No wonder the schools feel inundated with emails – this is a big business.

Many people commenting on The Monkey Business were quick to condemn the librarians – there was a chorus of “how could you let this happen”? But I have every sympathy with the librarians. I had myself witnessed an excruciating session some years ago, in a well-run school, in which a group of 14-year-olds were shown a video by an outside agency, illustrating one sexual practice with the aid of a bread stick and a jar of Nutella. Live action activity days are not something you can vet in full in advance – a day’s activity would take a day to vet to see all of it, and in schools an outside provider will often cover five year groups for a full day. To watch it all would be five man-days' effort, which would be unlikely to be available, even if the provider agreed.

Should the library have realised from the website of the provider what they were signing up to? Well, when this first blew up, I took a look at the website (it is now shut down). The company concerned had a record of delivering to other similar settings. They had funding from, among others, the Arts Council. The front pages showed colourful pictures of young performers dressed up as cuddly dogs. Five minutes perusal didn’t ring loud alarm bells. Looking deeper, once aware of the problem that had arisen, there were many things that took on a more sinister tone but, on the whole, I don’t think a hard-pressed librarian should have spotted the approaching risk – although once aware they could have responded more appropriately .

It is a clear and obvious safeguarding risk. As things stand, anyone could set up tomorrow as a provider and they would need, at most, a snazzy website and a clear DBS check – which is only evidence that you haven’t been caught. They do not need to show they are good at teaching or know what to teach. It seems obvious to me – but it seems it was not to the company concerned - that children should not be taught to accept that penises are to be displayed. We spend a lot of time telling children that “privates are private” - it is a cornerstone of safeguarding. Children shouldn’t be presented with teaching materials that suggest regressive and harmful ideas like “I was born wrong” or “girls are supposed to be girly”. They shouldn’t have lessons foisted on them that are either inaccessible because of literacy, or worthless mathematically, because it seems “inclusive”. Inclusion is a priority but not at the expense of educational merit.

And that is when I began thinking in my lawyerly way – how could you stop this? We need a bank of providers who are vetted to ensure that where they provide training to teachers or teach or make materials for teaching our young people, these are lawful, helpful and appropriate. Yes, vetting organisations is time consuming, but it is also vital, and at least doing so once properly for thousands of schools is better than doing so sketchily thousands of times. Ofsted, of course, already audit not only schools but nurseries and childminders, so this extension seems very logical.

I do think this issue is urgent, and as a result I recently had a petition to Parliament approved, which you can find here: Subject all outside providers of educational materials to children to Ofsted. - Petitions (parliament.uk) . As women, as parents, as concerned people, across the political spectrum, I ask you please to consider supporting it. Thank you.

The Conservative Government’s Prison Policy is Shameful

Fri, 09 Jul 2021 07:50:55 GMT

It prioritises the demands of male criminals over the rights of vulnerable women

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 9 July 2021.

We have written to Ministers to voice our concerns. Please forward this letter to your own MP or attend their surgery in person. This state exploitation of vulnerable women must end.

***

Dear Ministers,

We are writing to you to object to the way in which the Conservative Government, and responsible Ministers, continue to undermine women's rights via adherence to, and compliance with, gender ideology. We are referring, here, to the Ministry of Justice policy of housing trans-identifying males within women's prisons.

A High Court judgement delivered last week concluded that the Ministry of Justice's policy is legal. But a different approach would also be legal. It would be possible for the Ministry of Justice to house trans-identifying male prisoners separately from female prisoners by simply invoking specific clauses in the Equality Act which allow for single sex accommodation and service provision.

That the Government chooses not to follow this alternative approach, indicates that it prioritises male demands over female rights. In our view, because the women involved have no choice - they’re prisoners - they are effectively being used as objects, chattels, to satisfy male demands.

Nothing in the Gender Recognition Act nor the Equality Act ever foresaw giving men the right to actually ‘access’ the presence of women. Something totalitarian has crept into our system when actual Government policy creates this ‘ right of access ’ to women. That totalitarianism is gender ideology. We’re shocked that a Conservative government and Ministers comply.

Prioritisation of male demands over female rights

The Equality Act clearly sets out the legitimacy of service providers providing single sex accommodation for men and women. However, it is up to service providers to invoke this.

The Conservative Government has deliberately chosen not to invoke this with respect to women's prisons. It has chosen instead to place some (but not all) trans-identifying male prisoners within women's prisons. It does not even limit this to those males with a 'Gender Recognition Certificate' who have a legal right to be treated as women for some (but not all) purposes.

Instead, Conservative policy is to place some men who are biologically and legally male in women's prisons. Sometimes they have committed acts of sexual violence, sometimes rape . This is despite the known vulnerability of women prisoners, many of whom have been subjected to male violence and sexual violation.

We therefore can't shy away from the truth. The wishes, not even the legally recognised rights , of violent male criminals have been placed ahead of what we would argue are the fundamental human rights of female prisoners. Vulnerable women should have the right to be housed with safety, dignity, and privacy, and removed from criminal male presence, menace, threat of violence.

This is not a ‘niche’ concern - it reflects a deep malaise

Some people might think this is a niche issue impacting a tiny number of people. We argue that it is not. In the High Court Judgement given last week on this issue, in the opening sentence, the Judge referred to people being 'assigned' a gender 'at birth'. We know this is nonsense. Sex is determined at conception. There is no 'assignation process' which takes place at birth. There never has been. Not now, not prior to the Enlightenment, not prior to 'Western medicine', not prior to anything, ever. So gender ideology doesn't just undermine and ignore science. It ignores elementary human knowledge .

Not based in science or reason, gender ideology has no foundation but in the intent of those who promote it . We are handing this small group of people power over all of us . The Conservatives surely cannot remain so complicit.

Female prisoners are being treated as chattels, objects

Via the Equality Act, it is up to service providers to decide whether to provide single sex spaces. They are able to do so when they can point to a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

We would have thought that preserving the privacy, dignity, safety of female prisoners would be a legitimate aim. Women are entitled to single sex spaces. They are entitled sometimes to know that there are no men in the room. We believe humans have recognised this forever, across all societies. We would have thought that it would be elementary to recognise that vulnerable female prisoners, who have often been the subject of male violence and sexual assault, would be entitled to a female only space - particularly when the males we are talking about are criminals, sometimes violent criminals.

We are aware that other services providers - such as High Street retailers - are removing their single sex spaces such as changing rooms. But there is an important factor here. Women generally are free to shop elsewhere .

Female prisoners can’t go elsewhere - they are locked up. The State is therefore enforcing male presence upon them, without recourse.

The Gender Recognition Act allows that trans-identifying males be recognised as female-gendered for some, but not all, circumstances. It would be entirely possible to comply with this with dignity, compassion, and care, by providing trans-identifying males with their own specialist prison provision. To go beyond this and to place trans-identifying males within women’s prisons can only be justified on one basis: that is to give men access to women, to give men the ‘presence of women’ . It uses women as chattels, usable objects, to meet a male demand. It uses imprisoned women as chattels, usable objects, to meet male demands.

We can't see a 'balancing of rights' going on here. No matter how we look at it. We only see a demand on one side - which is not actually required in law, and a violation, an objectification, on the other.

Some people would say life has ever been thus. That male desire trumps female boundaries, or that the powerful trump the vulnerable. But the actual, most elementary, role of the state is to protect the vulnerable. That is literally the primary role of the state!

When the actual state starts to do the opposite; when it fails to protect the weak but instead to objectify them, and use them, to satisfy the demands of others, that’s a hallmark of totalitarianism. What now ushers in this new totalitarianism is gender ideology. Conservative policy is compliant.

We want to place on record that we regard the situation as shameful. We hope it will be reviewed.

ConservativesforWomen

Gender Ideology lobbyists continue to target children

Mon, 05 Jul 2021 12:28:31 GMT

The Government needs to act before more children are harmed

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 5 July 2021.

We have written to the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, about material being used in schools to promote gender ideology. This material promotes the idea to children that they can be born in the wrong body. Out of the dustbin of history it resurrects regressive gender stereotypes to help kids decide what their inner gender identity might be. Of these kids, a vulnerable few, seeking to make sense of a complex world, will buy into the idea. Whose child will end up confused, scared, persuaded? Which little boy or girl will end up with their sexual organs removed, sterile, a medical patient for life? Always the most vulnerable.

***

Dear Secretary of State for Education,

Late last year, in response to an avalanche of parental and media concerns about the promotion of gender ideology within schools, the Department of Education gave a clear instruction to schools. Contained within guidance on Relationships and Sex Education, it said :

‘We are aware that topics involving gender and biological sex can be complex and sensitive matters to navigate. You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence-based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. While teachers should not suggest to a child that their non-compliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support.’

We are writing to you to make you aware that:

Not all schools are complying with this guidance;
The LGBT charity, JustLikeUs, continues to develop and promote material that, in our view, does not comply with this guidance.
Extraordinarily, the Department of Education promotes this material and actively defends its promotion , seemingly in direct contradiction of its own advice, as outlined above.

We present a small selection of the evidence below, all material from JustLikeUs, and aimed at primary school children.

An introductory slide pack for 5-6 year olds promotes the idea that you might just 'feel like a girl or a boy' rather than actually be one.

Seven to ten year olds are told that biological sex is just a set of labels, whereas you more deeply are what you say you are.

This is a maths problem for 5 - 6 year olds:

This is another maths problem for 5 - 6 year olds:

Here is the term ‘transgender’ explained to 5-6 year olds. Imagine being 5 and being told that you were ‘assigned a gender’. If the adults in the room are telling you that you might not be a girl or a boy, as you have, till now believed, imagine how that feels? And how would you go about working out what you actually are? There is no path to this but via regressive restrictive damaging stereotypes.

Imagine telling 5-6 year olds that it is not their job to assume that another child is either a boy or a girl. This is lying to children. It is confusing them. Ultimately we think it is abusive. Humans have an innate evolved understanding of biological sex. We can accurately sex each other within seconds. We think it is abusive to disrupt and deny basic intuitive evolutionary knowledge with children. When adults lie to children, where can the children turn?

Imagine act ually trying to persuade children out of, away from, simply being confident in, even fairly oblivious to, their biological sex?

Imagine gas lighting 5 - 6 year olds like in this exercise below? Denying science and reality. Giving them an exercise where they trip up over language; where they are rendered ‘without language’?

Is this little girl the one who will end up sterilised and medicalised for life? Will she be happier with her breasts surgically removed? A fake penis constructed?

A final note. The materials above seem to have taken care not to visually present male and female stereotypes in order to facilitate the suggestion that a child might be born in the wrong body. The type of slide that the charity, Mermaids, uses, with its pink barbies for girls, and GI Joe for boys is missing . We wonder if this is because of the Department of Education guidance presented above, so specifically refers to such stereotyping. So the question remains: how might a teacher, child, class group discuss the idea that someone might be born in the wrong body? Try it. You can’t do it without reference to stereotypes. Try.

And so, see the support books suggested to facilitate this classroom discussion. Spot the stereotypes?

The Conservatives need to act to prohibit this type of material being used in schools. Before more children are harmed. No child is born in the wrong body. No school should promote the idea that a child can be born in the wrong body. No school should promote gender ideology. The Conservatives must act to end this tragedy taking place with our kids, in our schools.

Conservatives for Women

The Equal Treatment Bench Book discriminates against gender critical women

Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:26:18 GMT

We have written to the Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice asking for an urgent review

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 18 June 2021.

Dear Lord Chancellor,

We are writing to you to express our concern over guidance provided by the Equal Treatment Bench Book, produced by the Judicial College, which provides guidance to the courts and judiciary across England and Wales.

We write to you in the light of two recent events. The first is the decision of the Ministry of Justice to leave the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme. It has been widely reported in the press that Stonewall appears to have, at times, misrepresented the law to its clients. The second is the recent Court decision in the Maya Forstater case. This held that Gender Critical beliefs (including that sex is binary and immutable) are a protected characteristic. Those who hold and express these beliefs are protected from discrimination .

Our first concern is that the Equal Treatment Bench Book provides incorrect advice to the judiciary about ‘pronoun usage’ within the justice system and that in doing so, it discriminates against gender critical men and women.
Our second concern is that, possibly under the direct or indirect influence of Stonewall, the Equal Treatment Bench Book has mis-stated the law as it applies to those who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Both of these issues surely need urgent review.

‘Pronoun usage’ within the justice system

The ETBB instructs judges and courts that ' It should be possible to recognise a person’s gender identity and their present name for nearly all court and tribunal purposes, regardless of whether they have obtained legal recognition of their gender by way of a Gender Recognition Certificate '. ( page 326 )

It also says 'Be alert to issues about how someone prefers to be addressed: showing respect for a person’s gender identity includes using appropriate titles (Mr/Ms) and personal pronouns (he/him/his; she/her/hers). Some trans people prefer gender neutral terminology (Mx/they/them/theirs), which should be accommodated if that is known.' (page 341)

This guidance has already led to at least one victim of violence by a trans-identifying male being reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing her attack. Even though the defendant was found guilty, the judge refused his victim compensation. He said ' that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’ ".

Requiring women to describe violent male assailants as female is morally offensive for many women. It is also coerced speech, for which there is no basis in law in this country. Meanwhile, following the Forstater case, it is clear that 'gender critical' beliefs are protected in law. Employment lawyer, Peter Daly, has said of the Forstater case 'It is a comprehensive reminder of the liberal principles of freedom of speech and thought that underpin our democracy'.

If a judge instructs a woman, particularly a victim, in Court, to refer to a violent male criminal as 'she' might that judge not be guilty of harassment under Section 26(1) of the Equality Act? This states:"A person (A) harasses another (B) if ... the conduct has the purpose or effect of (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

In a free society, people should be able to identify as they wish and ask for modes of expression and conduct from friends and family as they wish. But a free society cannot coerce or force others to 'buy into' that identity nor can it coerce or force others to comply with those modes of expression and conduct. That would no longer be a free society.

Will the ETBB now be updated to clarify that where individuals ask to be referred to by pronouns that do not align with their biological sex, then it is a matter of individual conscience, civility, and manners as to how others respond? This would ensure that the beliefs and moral frameworks of all are respected.

A mis-statement of the law

We would also like to point out that the ETBB mis-states the law. It instructs that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate is entitled to be recognised as the gender stated on their certificate 'for all purposes' (page 338). This is straight-forwardly incorrect. The Equality Act sets out more than one situation where trans-identifying males with a GRC may be treated differently to women. These provisions are not hard to find and generally allow for different treatment when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. For example, see the discussion about communal accommodation within Schedule 23 of the Act. It is unacceptable that the Bench Book so egregiously mis-states the law. We hope that you will seek an urgent correction.

We look forward to hearing from you,

ConservativesforWomen

The Ministry of Justice is free of Stonewall - and it's already starting to show

Wed, 09 Jun 2021 17:30:24 GMT

Untold numbers of policies and practices now need to be revised - let the work begin!

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 9 June 2021.

The Ministry of Justice is leaving the Stonewall diversity scheme. And it already shows. Women's rights - and dignity, decency, privacy - are finally being taken seriously. There is much work to do, but the process has begun.

All the way back in April we at ConservativesforWomen wrote to the Ministry of Justice expressing concern about the new Victim's Code that had just gone live. We weren't particularly surprised when our concerns were met with silence... So we tried the Victims Commissioner. A few months went by - and then suddenly - a result!

The updated ' Victim's Code ' was trumpeted as giving victims of crime greater confidence in the police and the courts. We were therefore astonished to see that the code was unclear as to whether female victims of sexual violence or domestic abuse would have the right to be interviewed by female police staff. You can see why the wording gave us concern:

'2.8. If you are a victim of sexual violence, gender-based violence or domestic abuse, you have the Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a gender of your choice. The police must meet your request unless doing so would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings. If this happens, the police will tell you why.

In our letter to the Victims Commissioner we pointed out that a woman should have the ' Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a SEX of your choice'. We asked:

Could you please clarify whether this was the intention of the Code and whether a correction will be made?
Or by using the term gender, is your intention that a female victim of sexual violence should have to accept interview by a biological male if he identities as a woman, without further recourse?
If this is so, how have the implications of the Equality Act, and sex being a protected characteristic, been taken into account in the formulation of this policy?'

Now, here, is the response, in full, that we are delighted to have finally received:

----------------------

“The reference in paragraph 2.8 of the new Victims’ Code, which came into force on 1 April, relating to victims being able to choose the gender of their police interviewer should be read as allowing for victims to choose the sex or gender of their interviewer. The right therefore includes both protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment.

The Equality Act 2010 permits the provision of services which are single or separate sex. Therefore victims may request an interviewer of a particular sex or gender and, as per paragraph 2.8, the police must meet the victims request unless doing so would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.”

----------------------

It is nice to see The Equality Act's single sex exemptions being so clearly referenced. Thank goodness Stonewall is gone. Of course, a letter to us is one thing; this 'clarification' needs to make its way to police forces across the land. There is no excuse for the unintended ambiguity to remain in the Code. We have written back to the Victims Commissioner as follows:

----------------------

"It is fantastic that the Ministry of Justice has clarified its intent around 2.8 of the Victims Code. However, this is not necessarily a natural or intuitive reading of the code: the Ministry of Justice's intent would be greatly enhanced if the code could be updated to actually reflect its intent. Therefore:

1) Will section 2.8 of the Victims Code be updated to clarify the Ministry of Justice intent, and to make it clear that if you are a 'victim of sexual violence, gender-based violence or domestic abuse' ...you have 'the Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a [insert] (sex or) gender of your choice'?”

----------------------

We will keep readers posted. Meanwhile, we will also now ask the Victims Commissioner to pursue our concerns around the Judicial College's updated Equal Treatment Bench Book. Particularly, its suggestion that female victims of violence should be required, in court, to use female pronouns for violent male perpetrators, should the latter demand it, violating freedom of speech and conscience.

Untold numbers of policies and practices need to be revised, to protect women’s rights, the integrity of science, and freedom of speech and conscience - let the work begin!

The Judicial College is captured by gender ideology

Wed, 26 May 2021 13:12:27 GMT

We have written to the Lord Chief Justice to raise our concerns.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 26 May 2021.

Dear Lord Burnett,

We are writing to draw your attention to our concerns with the recently revised Equal Treatment Bench Book, produced by the Judicial College, and used to guide our judicial system across England and Wales. Our concerns relate to the guidance on how judges and courts should interact with trans-identifying individuals within the court system.

The guidance: threatens the integrity of the courts, corrodes our understanding of crime, undermines freedom of speech, and erodes women's rights. Most significantly, it mis-states the law . That a document authored by our judicial college, for use by judges, can egregiously mis-state the law is something we hope you will take seriously and investigate.

We urge you to read the whole of the relevant chapter contained here , starting at page 324. However, we have also set out our evidence for the claims we make below.

The Bench Book threatens the integrity of the courts

The Bench Book suggests that in almost all circumstances, within the criminal justice system a trans person's sex should remain unmentioned. The suggestion is that people should be described in court, in documentation, in reporting, as however they ‘self-identify’. The trouble is that, in reality, humans can almost always accurately sex each other within seconds. Therefore to imply that a trans person's actual sex can not be referred to within the court, and that everyone within the court should be required to participate in a fiction - possibly as directed by a violent criminal - risks gaslighting everyone involved. All must participate, in a fiction, within a system whose purpose is to seek the truth. This undermines the courts and the integrity of the justice system.

The Bench Book threatens our ability to understand crime

Men commit the vast majority of crimes in this country. Understanding that matters, for the study and management of criminality, and for women's safety. But, as above, the Bench Book suggests that, in almost all circumstances, within the criminal justice system a trans person's sex should remain unmentioned.

The end result is that police and court records mis-state the actual sex of the perpetrators of violent crimes.We end up with situations like that of Rachel Richard Newton , a male paedophile recorded as female in the public record. Police and court data then feed into the Office of National Statistics. We end up with false data and false statistics, false newspaper reports , and ultimately false public perception and even an inability to actually find the truth.

Women stop trusting reports about the increase in the number of female sex offenders .

And ultimately we end up making life more dangerous for women: 'It's got dark and I'm not through the park - should I hurry and tail that other woman...? - Or perhaps not...?'

The Bench Book undermines freedom of speech

The Bench Book says that the preferred pronouns of trans people should be used within the court system. But many women are unwilling to use the preferred pronouns of trans-identifying males who have committed serious crimes. The reasons are obvious. It is insulting to women. It embraces a fiction that many women reject. It puts the rights of sometimes violent offenders above and before the freedom of speech and moral integrity of women.

This guidance has already impacted at least one victim of violence by a transgender woman. She was ‘reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge nevertheless refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’’.

Can I ask you how this respects women? Free speech? Freedom of conscience?

The Bench Book undermines women's rights

The Bench Book implies that people have a right to keep their sex hidden at work. This, in turn, must imply that trans-identifying males have the right to use the women's bathroom facilities at work, without any prior discussion. Who said so? What right does the Judicial College have to push this one-sided agenda which many women object to? In fact the Government has recently re-confirmed that public places are required to have single sex bathroom facilities . The Bench Book subtlety contributes to the undermining of women's rights.

The Bench Book mis-states the law

The Bench Book states that a person with a full Gender Recognition Certificate is entitled to be recognised as the gender stated on their certificate 'for all purposes'. This is a straight-forward mis-statement of the law. The Equality Act sets out more than one situation where trans-identifying males with a GRC may be treated differently to women. These provisions are not hard to find and generally allow for different treatment when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. For example, see the discussion about communal accommodation within Schedule 23 . It is unacceptable that the Bench Book so egregiously mis-states the law. We hope that you will seek an urgent correction.

Lord Burnett, gender ideology is damaging our society. It seems to have been embraced by the Judicial College. Mis-stating the law in a document intended for use in our courts is a serious matter. So is the assault on: the integrity of truth-telling in court and on the public record, free speech and freedom of conscience, and women’s rights. We hope you will take our concerns seriously and investigate what we have raised.

Conservatives for Women

The Government Equalities Office confuses sex with gender

Thu, 06 May 2021 14:47:02 GMT

Everyone else got it right; the GEO remained determined to confuse

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 6 May 2021.

Since last year the Government has been planning to reduce the cost of getting a legal gender change via a 'gender recognition certificate'. This has been widely reported. For example, the BBC said that 'Ministers pledged ... to slash the cost of legally changing gender from £140'. The Times said that 'the fee to make a change to legal gender will be cut from £140...'

Finally the Government Equalities Office confirmed the change via a press release on Tuesday. But in time-honoured fashion, the GEO seems committed to inaccurate language, poor representation of law, and no understanding of basic science. The GEO press release stated that 'the Government hopes that modernising the process of applying will allow more transgender people to legally change their sex with a GRC should they wish to do so'.

The Gender Recognition Act is called the Gender Recognition Act. Its entire preamble setting out terms and purpose refers to gender. There is a reason for this. Language matters. Law needs to be clear. Biology is real. You cannot change sex. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act both recognise situations where people with a gender recognition certificate should not be treated according to their legally acquired gender but rather by reference to their sex. This is overt legal recognition of the biological reality that you cannot change sex. It matters greatly that we hold on to this reality. It matters particularly for women who have fought hard for their sex based rights and single sex spaces and opportunities.

The remit of the Government Equalities Office is to lead work on 'policy relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality'. It had plenty of time to prepare this press release. How could it get something so basic, yet so important, wrong? It is not acceptable that the GEO gets in such a muddle over core matters at the very heart of its remit.

The Mental Health Act matters - but gender ideology strikes again

Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:30:29 GMT

Our public sector is swept along by irrational fashion, or perhaps bullying by LGBT+ diversity champions

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 15 April 2021.

The Conservative Government continues to allow gender ideology to be rolled out across the public sector. The latest example is the Department of Health and Social Care in its important consultation on reforming The Mental Health Act. This is the Act which sets out when someone can be detained in hospital and treated for a mental health disorder, at times against their wishes. (Sometimes called being 'sectioned'.) The Act sets out the process for assessment, treatment, and the protection of people's rights.

If you respond to the consultation, here is what you come across , directly after providing your age.

Not 'What is your Sex? ' but 'How would you describe your gender?'

Why has sex become irrelevant? Who decided that the consultation should ask the question in this manner? What about the Equality Act and the protected characteristic of sex, in law?

What answers can you give? Options provided are: male (including transgender men); female (including transgender women); prefer not to say; or prefer to self-describe. Examples given for 'self-describe' are: 'non-binary, gender-fluid, agender'. How many people will even know what these terms mean? I just googled 'agender' and got: 'genderless, genderfree, genderblank neutrois'. Got it?

Who decided that 'transgender men' should, for the purposes of this consultation, be counted amongst the men? And 'transgender women' amongst the women? Why wasn't categorisation by biological sex used? What was taken into consideration? How might this format skew the results?

Men are significantly more likely to be sectioned than women. I expect that it is very often women who are involved in the traumatic decision to participate in the sectioning of someone who they love and who they may have come to fear. The consultation specifically refers to harm: 'We also want to change the detention criteria so that an individual is only detained if there is a substantial likelihood of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the person, or the safety of any other person'. Mothers might be involved in the tragic decision to section a son; a wife her husband. These are serious, difficult, and tragic decisions involving the state depriving vulnerable individuals of their freedom. There is sometimes violence leading up to or during the act. Yet the government decides to muddle gender ideology into this important consultation - grab another opportunity for promotion.

It also seems likely that women, as a group, will make different judgments to men about the sectioning process. Perhaps women would like lower barriers to state intervention; perhaps they would place a higher value on protection from potential harm or violence. It would be useful to be able to see whether this is so in the results of the consultation. Well that has been judged to be irrelevant by the Department of Health and Social Care. They'd rather know how people feel, 'by gender'. They want to know whether non-binary people have a different opinion to agender people.

Compared to this tragedy, the next question is comic. It indicates the willingness of our public sector to be swept along by irrational fashion, or perhaps bullying by LGBT+ diversity champions. The State would like to know your sexual orientation before you respond to the Mental Health Act consultation. It tells you that if you are bisexual, this means you are 'attracted to more than one sex'. You can also say if you are pansexual or asexual. (To save you googling: 'Pansexuality means being attracted to all people regardless of gender identity or sex'.)

People responding to this consultation may have been involved in serious situations involving state incarceration of disturbed loved ones. And the Department of Health and Social Care, and its 'diversity champions', have the audacity to gatekeep the start of the consultation with this ideological drivel. Use the opportunity to spread the word, irrespective of the harm done. At the end of the consultation, we won't really know, for sure , how women feel differently to men about the tragic and significant process of state sectioning of the mentally ill.

Women's views and voices matter. But they are in danger of being lost. Science, truth, and logic are being undermined. And the validity and precision of social and medical research. But the Conservative Government seems casually indifferent - or captured?

Questions for your PCC Candidate

Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:31:39 GMT

We're sending this letter to all Conservative PCC Candidates

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 13 April 2021.

Local elections for Police and Crime Commissioners are coming up in May. PCCs oversee local police forces and play an important role in setting police priorities and delivering effectiveness. Democratically elected, PCCs are intended to be ' the voice of the people' ensuring that police priorities reflect local priorities. Many women are becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which police forces have taken on board gender ideology. The PCC elections are therefore an opportunity to brief candidates about our concerns and to ask them how they would deal with these concerns. We are therefore sending this letter to all Conservative PCC candidates. We urge you to do the same for your local candidates. However, and perhaps this is even more important: when the elections are over we suggest you ask for a meeting with the new incumbent, to put your concerns to them in person, build an ongoing relationship, and seek answers.

*************

Dear PCC Candidate,

Many women are increasingly concerned by the way in which police forces across the country have taken on board "gender ideology" which prioritises the importance of the concept of ‘inner gender identity’ over biological sex. This is despite the fact that there is no basis for this concept in science, nor protection for it in law. However, sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act. Many police forces also pay the charity Stonewall to provide them with advice on this subject. Stonewall actively campaigns on the basis that 'transwomen are women' - with no ifs, buts, or caveats - and that they should be able to self-identify into female safe spaces and opportunities.

As you can imagine, this prioritisation of 'gender ideology' over both established science and women's rights undermines women's confidence in the police.

College of Policing Hate Crime guidance is also being used to suppress our freedom of speech and inhibit our ability to discuss these important matters. You are likely aware, for example, that ex-policeman, Harry Miller, was reported to the police for tweeting about gender ideology, and the police hold records which effectively accuse him of 'hate'. Many women and many Conservatives are alarmed at the over-reach of the concept of 'Non-Crime Hate Incident' and the chilling impact it is now having on free speech.

If you are elected PCC:

1) Will you commit your force to recording all crime statistics, both victim and perpetrator, by sex rather than by self-declared gender? (Police forces in this country have stated that they will even record male rapists as 'female' if they claim to so identify.)

2) If a woman is reported to your force for a ‘hate incident’ for engaging in debate (online or offline) about the conflict between women’s rights and gender ideology will you commit to informing her so that she can defend herself against such accusations, and will you ensure that only accurate and unbiased records are maintained?

3) Will you commit to defending free speech and open debate, and to challenging College of Policing Hate Crime Guidance in your capacity as PCC, because of the impact it is having on free speech and women's right to open debate on these important matters?

4) Will you commit to undertaking an honest review of your forces relationship with Stonewall, or any other 'LGBT advisory groups' which promote gender ideology, exploring how this impacts your force's understanding of The Equality Act, women's rights, and science?

Thank you for reading,

ConservativesforWomen

*****************

Where are the Tories who will stick up for science, reason, free speech and women's rights?

Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:21:48 GMT

Thank goodness for Liz Truss but why the silence from other senior Tory MPs?

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 11 April 2021.

Last week the press updated us on the Government's plans to reduce the cost associated with individuals acquiring a legal change to their gender.

According to The Daily Telegraph, the cost will be cut from £140 to a 'single figure' next month. The Telegraph quoted Lee Clatworthy from the 'national transgender charity Sparkle' arguing that the process for legal gender change nevertheless remains 'overly longwinded'. Never having heard of this charity, I looked them up. They organise ' Manchester’s Transgender Day of Remembrance event '. Hardly a 'national charity'. I looked for the Telegraph's balancing comments from women's groups; you guessed it, there wasn't anything.

Over at the BBC, Nancy Kelley, chief executive of LGBT charity Stonewall, said any fee "creates a barrier for some trans people". Also "It's also important that the government commit to a clear timeline of further changes to streamline the application process, and move it online. However, none of these changes are a substitute for meaningful reform to the Gender Recognition Act". In a bizarre coincidence, the BBC also interviewed 'Lee Clatworthy from national transgender charity Sparkle'. He said 'the process remains "overly long-winded" and a reduction in cost "won't compel more to apply"'.

Who did the BBC call to get an opinion from the wide variety of women's groups concerned about these changes? No-one .

The Government Equalities Office told the BBC ' "The government is committed to making the process of applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate as straightforward and dignified as possible.'

That surely is a misrepresentation from the GEO that Liz Truss might want to correct. The government specifically decided to keep some checks and balances in place in the GRC process; in other words not to make the process as straightforward as possible. The Government Equalities Office seems to fail to understand that one of the reasons for this, is to keep in place some protections for women's single sex spaces and opportunities. This is despite the GEO having the remit to oversee equalities legislation. Here's a quote from their website : 'The Government Equalities Office leads work on policy relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality.'

The GEO is surely not fit for purpose - it's captured by gender ideology and seems to be blind to its impact on women's rights and vulnerable children. This is glaringly obvious, yet in my view the Tories remain too slow in bringing about change. What is going on? We know that Liz Truss is onside and she is the responsible Minister. Surely other senior Tories know that biological sex is binary and immutable, and have concerns about the wider impacts of gender ideology on the basis of society in science, reason, and free speech. No-one voted for gender ideology, so its continued roll-out within our public institutions is also undemocratic.

We need to know where senior Tories stand on these issues. Why the ongoing silence?

Dear Bowls England: please protect women's sports and spaces

Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:00:16 GMT

Please tell Bowls England what you think

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 7 April 2021.

Last year, the Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, repeatedly publicly committed to protecting women’s single sex spaces. In April 2020, talking about the Gender Recognition Act consultation she said: “there are three very important principles that I will be putting place. First of all, the protection of single-sex spaces.” Shortly afterwards, she repeated the same commitment to the Women and Equalities Committee.

It's becoming increasingly clear that she needs to follow through on this commitment. The Equality Act makes clear that women have a right to single sex spaces whenever it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim . Nevertheless, many organisations seem to feel nervous about invoking this right. Sometimes this is when they have come under pressure from just one man, who has decided to 'identify as female' and seek access to women's spaces. For some reason, time and time again, organisations feel that this one man's feelings should be prioritised over all the existing female users of a space.

The latest example of this is Bowls England. Stella Moore, a 67 year old trans-identifying male, who has 'identified' as a woman for three years has pushed Bowls England into reviewing its rules for transgender players. Apparently Moore wants access to the female-only competitions and facilities. The sport of bowls has plenty of mixed sex competitions. Transgender players can play in these and enjoy the competition and company of men and women. This is therefore not about Moore and other transgender players being able to play, and to enjoy company and the outdoors. It seems to be more about bullying women into accepting men into their spaces.

We have time to influence Bowls England in its decision-making . We should defend the rights of, in this case, usually older women to be able to mix with each other, enjoy each other's company, and play bowls with each other, in a wholly female space. We should point Bowls England to the Equality Act and the legal legitimacy of female-only spaces and opportunities. An important part of this is that older women, enjoying their bowling clubs, should also have the right to female-only toilets and changing facilities. The Telegraph indicates that this is part of the Bowls England review and that they may even be considering giving trans-identifying men access, not just to the women's competitions, but also their facilities .

Please tell Bowls England what you think .

There is also, increasingly a problem with how the media reports on these cases and what it reveals about what they believe it means to be female. The Daily Mail calls Moore 'she' throughout its reporting . In fact, it refers to this 67 year old as 'Miss Moore'. The BBC reports in the same manner , as does the Telegraph and other outlets. They say that Moore has 'lived as a woman for three years'.

Can't these media outlets see how insulting this is to women? And so profoundly and deeply regressive? What do these reporters, these editors, think it means to 'live as a woman'? Does it mean to get up in the morning and put on make-up and a skirt? Do they really think that that is what it is to 'live as a woman'?

A woman is not a man in a dress. A man in a dress is not a woman. I actually thought everyone who is older than a toddler knew that. Actually, I know that we all know this. So what is going on? It's shocking to see how many of us will parrot fashionable nonsense, presumably as a ticket to a quiet life .

The trouble is that it isn't just fashionable but harmless nonsense, about which we should 'be kind'. Do we really want our daughters to read this nonsense and to absorb that adults think there are certain ways to 'live as a woman'? Which seems to invoke not much more than hair, skirts, and make-up? Please. This is really regressive vacuous stuff, pumped out cheerfully by our media.

There is some real cognitive dissonance going on with gender ideology. People seem to think it is progressive. There is nothing progressive about participating in the erosion of women's single sex spaces and opportunities. There is nothing progressive about saying that there are certain ways of 'living as a woman'. There is nothing progressive about saying that a man who wants to experiment with skirts, fabrics, make-up, whatever it is he likes to do, must in some sense be a woman. This is patronising, regressive, sexist, nonsense - which is actually harmful for both sexes.

Stella Moore - you would be a ten-fold better example for young men and women, if you went down to the bowling club in your glad-rags and proudly said 'I am a man - this is what I like to wear'. You would be a ten-fold greater friend to women if you said 'I respect your right to single sex spaces'.

I really hope Bowls England holds up women's rights to single sex spaces, sports, and opportunities. I really hope Bowls England does something properly progressive and welcomes men in skirts.

If it does not, it will surely be evidence that Liz Truss needs to act.

Female victims of sexual violence should have the right to be interviewed by a woman

Thu, 01 Apr 2021 13:19:33 GMT

We have written to the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice seeking urgent clarification on this point, we will keep you posted.

*****************

Dear Sir,

Question for Robert Buckland QC in his capacity as Lord Chancellor

We read today of the new Victims Code which goes live today, April 1.

Our specific concern comes under 'Right 2' - To have the details of the crime recorded without unjustified delay.

Within that provision there is this:

The report uses the words sex and gender and therefore implies an understanding of the difference between these terms. A victim of sexual violence, in many cases a woman, should have the right to be interviewed by another women if she so wishes. In other words, she should have the 'Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a SEX of her choice'

Could you please clarify whether this is the intention of the Code and whether a correction will be made?
Or by using the term gender, is your intention that a female victim of sexual violence should have to accept interview by a biological male if he identities as a woman, without further recourse?

The full code is here .

Thank you,

ConservativesforWomen

Women in the Church of England whistleblow about gender ideology

Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:35:43 GMT

Women in the Church of England have begun expressing their concerns about the impact of gender ideology within the church.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 29 March 2021.

Women in the Church of England have begun expressing their concerns about the impact of gender ideology within the church. Whistleblowers have contacted us because they feel unable to speak out internally. They have also approached the Free Speech Union.

In fairness to the Church of England, its policies and approaches relating to gender identity may well have worked when they applied to a tiny number of gender-dysphoric people. However, now that gender ideology has become a youth-focused and social media phenomenon; and now that every distressed young person can 'reach for' gender ideology as a framework for understanding life's pain and confusion; well-intentioned policies are likely to be coming under increasing strain.

Extraordinarily, Church materials call for 'unconditional affirmation' of trans people . The pastoral guidance can be found here . Imagine being the parents of a young person who, perhaps autistic spectrum, perhaps struggling with their sexuality, perhaps part of a peer group who is doing the same, has 'come out as trans'. Shouldn't parents be able to expect some moderation, some caution, some wisdom from the ages, from the Church? And what of young people themselves? More and more detransitioners now step forward; some have lost their sexual function, will be unable to have children, will carry scars for life. How can the Church explain and condone its 'unconditional affirmation' approach to these young people?

Our whistleblowers tell us that there is pressure from the Church to simply 'affirm' any man as a woman who demands it. Members of the congregation are supposed to participate in affirming men as women 'even if we are rape victims'. A man must be affirmed as a woman 'even though many of our congregations include women who have been abused by men, vulnerable people such as girls with learning difficulties, children who have experienced abuse, families of transitioners and victims of male clergy abuse'.

"This is coercive speech... The grooming angle is horrendous... It goes against safeguarding procedures...".

"Few of us signed up for this new form of controlled speech and belief... No consideration is given to anyone else's belief or consent. Clergy must use female pronouns for males on male demand, and clergy are required to hide reality, and mislead entire church congregations about the birth sex of males who identify as women. Demands from transgender people to control everyone else's language, and hide their birth sex, are to take precedence over the beliefs and material reality of entire church congregations, including male abuse survivors, despite the huge number of vulnerable people churches welcome..."

"The CofE transgender guidance is gaslighting children, victims of male abuse, people with learning difficulties, survivors of male clergy abuse, women, those with learning difficulties, children - entire congregations full of vulnerable people".

These are strong claims. But they are surely valid. Attempting to live in truth matters to people - particularly within the Church. Science and reality matter. So do freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. And, of course, safeguarding. You would also think the established Church has its own wisdom, from the ages, to help people who are running from, pained by, reality.

I would like Church leaders reading this to reflect upon these words from an American mother : "My once beautiful daughter is now nineteen years old, homeless, bearded, in extreme poverty, sterilized, not receiving mental health services, extremely mentally ill, and planning a radial forearm phalloplasty (a surgical procedure that removes part of her arm to construct a fake penis)".

Please read this incredible testimony from another mother . Some of her worries for her daughter: 'Women on high doses of testosterone have a much higher risk for heart attacks, stroke, and blood clots. They suffer from vaginal and uterine atrophy, painful conditions that normally precipitate a hysterectomy at a young age, putting them into menopause before they are out of their twenties'. This is where 'unconditional affirmation' can lead.

The words of a detransitioner : 'With all my heart I wish my gender clinic had not enabled me to transition'.

The Church should also consider seriously the concerns of many older gay people, that gender ideology can feel like the new homophobia.

I can only restate that safeguarding is also an issue.

Trans-identifying people should feel safe in church. But so should women and children. Holding on to reality matters; freedom of speech and conscience matters - in life, and in faith, and in Church. The Church of England should surely address these growing concerns with open and honest dialogue.

Caroline Nokes MP reveals a lack of intellectual seriousness about women's rights

Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:29:47 GMT

Her response to gender critical feminists: ‘You know what, I just don’t agree with you.’

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 25 March 2021.

Conservative MP, Caroline Nokes, has given an interview to the New Statesman . In it she reveals a remarkable lack of intellectual seriousness over the gender ideology debate and its implications for women's rights. Nokes is Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee; which is currently undertaking an enquiry into proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act. It's a serious role, and a large number of women, and women's groups, have put enormous thought and energy into making submissions to the process. We are expecting these submissions to be taken seriously. Nokes' approach to the subject appears shallow.

On the erosion of language relating to women, the New Statesman article quotes Nokes:

"... instead of focusing on what we can do practically to help, the Tory party is engaged in internecine warfare as to whether you should refer to pregnant people as mothers, or women, or pregnant people. And notwithstanding the fact that government legislation for the last ten odd years has all been drafted in gender-neutral terms, we’re now going to have a massive row about whether we have to call mothers ‘mothers’"

It is good to know where Nokes stands: she regards women's concerns over the erosion of female-specific language as a sideshow. She seems oblivious to the argument that it is not the role of the State to bulldoze through changes to how we use language. Then there is the underlying attack on science. Only women become pregnant. Only women are mothers. It would have been fantastic to hear Nokes actually be serious about this issue. How does she justify her position? Does she genuinely regard it as a legitimate role for the State to bulldoze through language changes? Does she not see a totalitarian edge to that? How would she set limits? Where is her respect for freedom? For tradition? For women's right to craft their own language? We long for a more intellectually rigorous and thoughtful position from Nokes.

Then, a phrase that leaves you hoping that the journalist has simply done a hatchet job on Nokes. "We’re going to get hung up on things like the Tavistock clinic." This is the Tavistock Clinic where gender-dysphoric children were, till recently, treated with experimental drugs that left them sterile and without adult sexual function. The Tavistock, which the Care Quality Commission rated as inadequate. Three snapshots from the CQC report:

"Staff had not consistently recorded the competency, capacity and consent of patients referred for medical treatment before January 2020".
"Staff did not develop all-inclusive care plans for young people."
"Staff did not fully record the reasons for their clinical decisions in case notes."

Medical outcomes? With the right care, 85% of young people with gender dysphoria desist from seeking a change in gender identity. But here is the Tavistock's full study of 44 children aged 12-15 who were given puberty blockers. Results: Height stunted, bone mass density impaired, no improvement in psychological function, no alleviation of gender dysphoria, all but one progressed to cross-sex hormones... Some real-world words from transitioners: here is a 24 year old woman, who, due to 'trans' medication has the bone density of an elderly woman . ('I have a fracture in the middle of my back that won't heal'.) Regrets? Here is a young woman who regrets her transition every day, with all her heart .

But Nokes does not want us to get 'hung up'. Let us hope that the journalist was being unfair.

Now the subject of gender ideology, male violence, and the implications for women. Nokes: "Everybody the whole time wants to drag it back to sort of the lowest common denominator and to wheel out, you know, the one example they can find of a trans woman who’s attacked someone." Caroline - isn't it the case, that each 'one example' matters? For example, this one example matters. Again we long for more rigour from Nokes. Is her policy position that this male rapist should be housed in a women's prison? Is that her idea of 'being kinder'? How is it kind to female prisoners? In the last decade, there have been seven sex attacks in women's prisons by transgender inmates . I wonder where the threshold would lie for Nokes to take this issue seriously.

Nokes's response to gender critical feminists: ‘You know what, I just don’t agree with you.’ That seems to be the quality of the analysis. Again it would be good to know where Nokes really stands. Does she support full sex self-ID? Does she support biological males being given open access to women's safe spaces if they 'self-identify' as female? How would she address concerns about women's safety, privacy, dignity? Does she support men being allowed to self-ID into women's hospital wards? Does she believe that trans-identifying males should be able to provide intimate health services to women? Does she believe that biological males should be able to compete in women's sports? If sexed language must be removed from law, would she also argue that it should be removed from life? Who benefits? How does she justify all this, knowing that sex is biological and immutable? That sex matters?

Most of all, I wonder where she sees the benefits for women? ConservativesforWomen would be delighted to debate these issues with Caroline Nokes.

Why are the Tories silent over the Sex and the Census debacle?

Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:41:03 GMT

The Census debacle illustrates the sheer scale of state capture by gender ideology

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 24 March 2021.

Over the weekend, writing for The Times , Janice Turner summarised the debacle that is the Office of National Statistics capture by gender ideology. Whereas biological sex is binary and immutable, the ONS had planned to allow a form of sex self-identification for last weekend's once-a-decade Census.

This was only stopped by the campaigning group, FairPlayForWomen, mounting and winning a High Court challenge. The challenge was funded by small voluntary contributions from thousands of people. The outcome of the challenge was that the ONS was instructed by the High Court to require people to provide their biological sex for the Census. The only exception to this is if you hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.

The Census has now been and gone, and there is a risk that we will all move on from the issue; the ONS has had its knuckles rapped, and will, we might presume, learn lessons.

However, my view is that it would be a serious mistake to 'just move on' - surely questions must be asked and lessons learned.

What the ONS proposed; the way it has been operating; and the role played in this debacle by other arms of the State and of Government, show we have a serious problem. Institutions of state and of government have been captured by gender ideology. This is undermining science and the basis of our society in establishment values. Gender ideology is undermining women's rights to single sex spaces; and their privacy, dignity, and safety. It's placing vulnerable children at risk. But it is also undermining democracy. When were any of us consulted about the adoption of gender ideology across whole arms of the State? When have any of our MPs across all parties seriously spoken about it, dared to discuss it and challenge it, head on? What does that say about the state of our democracy?

The evidence of ideological capture?

Firstly, the ONS. It's a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme. The ONS pays Stonewall for the privilege of that membership (taxpayer funds). For that privilege, it takes Stonewall's advice, not just on employee-related matters, but on how to make policy. Earlier this year the ONS published its methodology for making decisions about the sex question.The ideological capture is immediately obvious . The ONS says 'Sex can be defined in different ways'. 'These are sex as: registered at birth, recorded on birth certificate, recorded on legal/official documents, living / presenting, and self-identified'. Notice that reality - sex is biologically determined - is not even mentioned? What about the 'living / presenting'? Is that: long hair; lipstick? Oh the tragic, sexist, regressive, stereotyping that is inherently involved....

The ONS thinks that ' sex is assigned at birth '. Nobody who thinks this should be in charge of our national statistics. Scroll through the linked document and you will see that our ONS points us to a US-based outfit that pushes gender ideology at young people . Just in case we want more young people to feel uncomfortable in their natural sexed bodies and to contemplate a pathway towards cross-sex hormones, surgery, medicalisation for life, possible sterility and lack of sexual function.

Here is the ONS exchanging emails with Stonewall in 2020 about the Census sex question. The ONS has a 'quick catch-up' with the policy lead at Stonewall. Who says 'Stonewall accept there will probably be some compromise and that they would likely be fine with a version that keeps to the basic principle that allows trans people to respond with sex that they would choose to respond with'. Why does Stonewall get this privileged access to the policy-making process?

The ONS jumps when Stonewall say jump. Imagine feeling privileged enough to give the ONS this advice : “I’d strongly recommend that careful thought is applied to how the ONS can practically ensure that, depending on who is present at the roundtable, this is not a hostile environment for trans attendees”.

Now, to the ideological capture of other arms of the State. The ONS proposed that people should be allowed to provide to the Census, either their biological sex or 'legal documents such as a birth certificate, gender recognition certificate, or passport'. The inclusion of 'passport' would have enabled a form of 'self-ID'. Not many people know that, in this country, that you can change the sex marker on your passport with a doctor's note. A question for the Home Office - when was that ever subject to democratic scrutiny?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and NHS England both supported some version of self-identified sex for the Census. For the High Court challenge, the Cabinet Office submitted a witness statement defending the ONS approach and opposing the FairPlayforWomen claim. They shipped in one of the Government's top QCs, Sir James Eadie, who stated in Court that sex 'is an umbrella term' that includes a range of concepts such as 'lived' and 'self-identified'. Oh dear - is he confusing it with personality? 'He argued there were “5 concepts of sex” and that the definition of sex wasn’t “hermetically sealed”'. Why five, Sir ?

Now the Tory Government. Oh dear, Mr Gove? The Minister for the Cabinet Office submitted a written statement to the Court which said “The Minister opposes the application for interim relief”. He wrote of 'sex': "there is nothing in the Census legislation to confine its meaning to that of sex at birth or sex recorded on a gender recognition certificate. Should permission be granted, the Minister will consider whether it is necessary for him to play an active role in the litigation and, if so, will lodge detailed grounds”.

Please contemplate for a minute, the implication of Gove's intervention. He says that if a word is not defined within a piece of legislation, there is no limit to how that word can be used? So any piece of legislation could only proceed by first defining every single word used in that legislation? But how would we be able to understand the meanings of the words in the definitions? This is down the rabbit-hole with no way back out. Go down Gove's proposed route and we lose our collective grip on language and thereby on science and reality.

It's also surely embarrassing that since the High Court decision on the Census, restoring sanity, no Tory MP has commented. Are they not in charge?

The Census debacle illustrates the sheer scale of the state capture by gender ideology. We need to take this opportunity for a full review of this capture - and the Tory government surely needs to step up and make clear where the Tories stand. What are they afraid of? Science, reality, democracy, the safety of women and vulnerable children, now depend upon courage and leadership.

We have complained to the Chairs of the Conservative Party

Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:52:12 GMT

Misrepresentation of the Government's position, by an MP, on a public platform, is not acceptable

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 18 March 2021.

We have written to the joint Chairs of the Conservative Party to complain about the manner in which Crispin Blunt MP has misrepresented Government policy on a public platform. On Tuesday, in an article published on ConservativeHome , Crispin Blunt and Sue Pascoe, writing jointly, said that there had been an 'attack on Penny Mordaunt for stating the Government’s legal and moral position that “trans men are men and trans women are women”'.

This isn't the Government's position. After a lengthy consultation on options for reform to the Gender Recognition Act the Government decided to make no significant change to the process whereby people can obtain legal recognition of a 'gender' that differs from their biological sex. The Government accepted the argument, that this process, which creates a legal fiction, must remain carefully managed, with appropriate restrictions. It is therefore incorrect for Blunt and Pascoe to state that the Government's legal and moral position is that 'trans men are men and trans women are women'. This implies 'self-identification' which was rejected; and anyway, will, to the end of time, remain incorrect in science and reality. Biological sex is binary and immutable.

In our view is not acceptable for a Conservative MP to publicly misrepresent the Government's position on an issue. Particularly one where fact-checking is easy. People should speak the truth. MPs in particular should strive to speak the truth, to engage in honest debate about matters of importance. Not to do so undermines respect for MPs; in this case for the Conservative Party; and for our democracy.

We seem to be living in a polarised age. We all need to recommit to debating issues that matter openly and tolerantly; to speaking carefully and truthfully; to trying to understand the views of political opponents. None of us will benefit if the centre doesn't hold. Many women are deeply concerned about the safeguarding and fairness implications created by 'gender ideology'. We are worried about the undermining of the concept of biological sex and the preferment of the 'self-identified' concept of gender, which by definition does away with boundaries and gatekeeping.

To navigate these issues all of us should recommit to free speech, open tolerant debate, and, as much as we can, to the unbiased representation of the facts. That includes MPs; most importantly MPs.

We have complained about the BBC's coverage of the Conversion Therapy Debate

Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:08:19 GMT

This irresponsible bias from the BBC must stop - please complain

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 11 March 2021.

We have written to the BBC, and to the responsible Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, to complain about the BBC's coverage of the Conversion Therapy debate. The one-sideness; the unwillingness to give any coverage, or credence, to those calling for caution; is deeply irresponsible, divisive, and biased. We urge others to complain as well. This issue impacts lives.

**********

Dear BBC Complaints and Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden,

We write to you to complain about the BBC's coverage of the debate around Conversion Therapy, following the recent Westminster Hall debate on this subject. In particular, we would like to point you to this piece which the BBC published today (Thursday 11 March).

The article makes clear that 'LGBT+' groups now use a definition of 'Conversion Therapy' that covers both sexual orientation and 'gender identity'.

"Conversion therapy" refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

It then proceeds with ample coverage of activists who seek to not just (quite legitimately) campaign against, but also to openly attack, the Government's cautious approach to this issue. Voice and coverage is given to '20 LGBT+ organisations', MPs who 'backed a ban', the petition signed by '250,000 people', Jayne Ozanne and James Morton (formerly of the government's LGBT+ Advisory Panel), Peter Tatchell, Stonewall, and Labour shadow equality minister, Marsha de Cordova.

Here is one example of the BBC's inept and credulous reporting. "Ms Ozanne said there had been "a lack of engagement" with the group she runs, the Ozanne Foundation, and she accused ministers of acting against their advice." The implication seems to be that the Government should simply follow the directives of certain organisations (LGBT+ groups) and ignore everyone else. This is a shallow tactic coming from such a group; but for the BBC to credulously report, without challenge or alternative voice, is extraordinarily poor journalism and openly biased.

Where, in this article, is the BBC coverage of the voices, the campaign groups, who are deeply concerned about the way in which the concept of conversion therapy has been stretched to cover not just sexual orientation, but gender identity? Such a stretch raises the possibility that when a young person develops gender dysphoria, discomfort with their sexed body, a belief that they were 'born in the wrong body', then the only path ahead for them, from responsible adults, and all of society, will be affirmation.

Have BBC journalists stopped to consider where 100% affirmation leads? Have they not looked at any of the readily-available research that shows that the vast majority of young people who engage with 'gender ideology' desist with the right support? Should this support; the deep talking, exploration, engagement they need; from highly experienced professionals, be banned? Do BBC journalists really think that such young people would be better off if, to a person, they proceed down an affirmation pathway that can lead to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, facial surgery, breasts cut off, penises surgically removed, 'holes' created that need to be dilated daily for life, loss of sexual pleasures, sterility? Is this a better future for our young people? Why?

The Government is surely right to tread with care. The voices of caution in the gender ideology debate are now everywhere; group after group has formed. They are highly successful, with active and growing membership. They are engaged in policy, interacting with members of parliament and the House of Lords, challenging gender ideology in court. They represent the interests of many people up and down the country concerned by gender ideology. Yet the BBC, despite its charter, seems unwilling to make contact, to explore both sides of an argument, to desist from bias, when it comes to gender ideology. Could the BBC please do better? Try to reflect its charter?

We would be pleased to meet to discuss, bringing representatives from these many groups.

Conservatives for Women.

**********

MPs must not conflate sexual orientation and gender identity when they legislate about conversion therapy

Tue, 09 Mar 2021 19:12:19 GMT

The Conservatives have been naive in the debate about gender ideology - no more.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 9 March 2021.

There is pressure on MPs to ban 'conversion therapy'. The BBC reports that 'MPs from across the political spectrum' have called for the practice to be made illegal . This followed a Westminster debate on Monday evening that was triggered by a successful petition calling for the practice to be banned.

However, naive politicians need to be aware of a catch. The catch is the conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity. Last year, James Kirkup, writing in The Spectator , brought to public awareness, a document that is a 'toolkit' for trans activists - and which provides guidance on how to get their agenda sneaked into law and policy, under the radar of the democratic process. Kirkup wrote: 'One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small [trans] organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?' The trans toolkit explains how. One piece of advice it gives is to 'Tie your campaign to more popular reform'. This provides a 'veil of protection'. This is particularly important when you are dealing with a 'more difficult issue to win public support for'. In other words, the toolkit provides advice on how to undermine the democratic process.

This is exactly what is happening in the current 'conversion therapy' debate. The term 'conversion therapy' is understood by the public to refer to practices that seek to change people's sexual preferences. Such practices are widely regarded as abhorrent (though people should be free to talk to friends, families, therapists, doctors, about whatever they wish.) A ban on such practices is indeed likely to have wide popular support. So, 'trans toolkit' to hand, the activists have got going to 'tie their campaign to more popular reform'. With cavalier audacity, the meaning of a term has been changed - and with what rapid success. Our BBC leads the charge . It announces to the British public: '"Conversion therapy" refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity'. The BBC even tried to imply that the government is already on board with the new extended definition. It published, then removed (!) this statement : 'the government said in July that it wanted to ban attempts to suppress an individual's gender identity or sexual orientation". Absolute nonsense, of course. Go back and look at what Boris Johnson said in July and he referred specifically to 'gay conversion therapy '.

The trouble is that the Conservatives have been spectacularly naive in the debate about gender ideology and have been well 'played' by the trans lobby for the past decade. Stonewall, which promotes the idea that 'trans woman are woman' (no ifs, no buts, no caveats) is paid (by all of us via our taxes) to push this ideology into practically every public body in the country, via its Diversity Champions programme. We should not be surprised therefore when such a notion emerges in public policy - for example, the Ministry of Justice allowing violent male sex offenders who 'identify as women' into women's prisons .

Coming back to conversion therapy, already too many young people are being sucked into the notion that they will be better off if they align their body with an inner 'true self'; they will indeed be considered stunning and brave. Never mind that they may end up injecting cross-sex hormones, on a conveyor belt to having their breasts or penises removed, possibly rendered sterile and without sexual function, and unknown other health complications... A young man who has his penis removed, and a 'hole' created, will need to dilate the hole (stick something in it to keep it open)... for life .

The idea from the gender ideology lobby is that we criminalise anyone trying to persuade young people away from this tragic path.

As the conversion therapy issue makes its way through the policy-making process, all of us have a responsibility to watch, listen, and get involved. There can be no 'veil of protection' over this one.

The Conservatives must stem the tide of Gender Ideology

Tue, 02 Mar 2021 14:49:38 GMT

CfW lodge formal complaint about the behaviour of MP Penny Mordaunt

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 2 March 2021.

We have written to the Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the Conservative Party to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of Penny Mordaunt MP. Our contention is that by stating in Parliament, at the dispatch box, that 'trans men are men' and 'trans women are women' she is complicit in promoting a harmful ideology that undermines important foundations of our society and endangers women and children. We outline this, in our letter, which we publish below. We look forward to hearing their response and we will keep you posted.

Dear Sir / Madam,

We are writing to you to object to the manner in which Conservative MP, Penny Mordaunt, promotes gender ideology, via her position as a Conservative Minister. In Parliament this week, while speaking at the dispatch box, she stated 'trans men are men, trans women are women '.

While this statement, on the surface, makes little sense, it is part of an ideological drive that is doing enormous harm. The Conservative Government recently consulted extensively on options for reforming the Gender Recognition Act and concluded that no substantive changes should be made; rigorous gate-keeping must be maintained around provisions for people to change their legal gender markers. Penny Mordaunt is openly undermining government policy via her privileged position at the dispatch box.

Below we set out the ways in which gender ideology is undermining important foundations of our society. In our view, the Conservative Party, which has been in government for more than ten years, is doing too little to stem its tide. It is not too far-fetched to say that the Party is therefore complicit in undermining the values it exists to protect. Nobody voted for this ideology; it is in no manifesto. By participating in its promotion, the Conservative Party also undermines trust in our democracy. Please could we meet with you at the earliest possibility to discuss further?

1. Gender ideology eliminates the boundaries between the sexes. If, as Penny Mordaunt says 'trans women are women' then we might as well drop the 'trans'. Anyone is a woman who says they are a woman. At a stroke, this eliminates the boundary around spaces that have been created to keep women safe. Men can self-identify into women's prisons, refuges, toilets, and changing rooms. Gender ideology undermines the safety of women and the dignity and privacy of both sexes.

2. If trans women are women, that is the end of sex-segregated sport. Globally, we already see a pattern of men self-identifying into women's sports and taking prizes. How can this be justified?

3. If trans women are women, there is no mechanism whereby women, including elderly and vulnerable women, can request sex-segregated intimate health and social care. There is no way to maintain single sex hospital wards. There is no way to maintain the elementary, ancient, essential boundaries between men and women.

4. Gender ideology is promoted heavily on the internet, in online social forums. Vulnerable teenagers are persuaded that they will find their 'true self', and a resolution to the difficulties in being human, via an 'inner gender identity' which may bear no relation to their biological sex. Then, as they seek to enforce new names and invented pronouns, they can find themselves at loggerheads with those who love them the most, and provide their only security in their world - their family. Some of these teenagers go on to buy cross-sex hormones online . Some go on to seek surgery that will render them medicated for life, and leave them sterile and without sexual function. This is a medical and safeguarding scandal which continues to unfold.

5. Some young people are facing a sustained attack and challenge to their sexual identity. Young women and men face being called 'transphobic' if their sexual preference is for biological men or women, rather than for anyone according to their gender identity. Lesbian women appear to be under the most sustained attack, with men opting to 'self-identify' into their spaces.

6. Gender ideology, because of its flimsy unscientific foundations (biological sex is binary and immutable, and there is no science behind the idea of an 'inner gender identity') relies on an ongoing attack on free speech to maintain its ascendancy. The flimsy foundations must not be challenged because they will be exposed in all their emptiness. People are being removed from twitter for pointing out that trans women are biological males, and reported to their local police for 'hate'.

7. We are drifting towards 'compelled speech'. Women have been instructed in Court to refer to violent males as 'she'. Prison officers are informed that they should use female pronouns for a male prisoner who requests it and male prisoners have demanded to be searched by female officers.

8. Newspapers produce stories that are literally not true. We don't even have a name for this. (Lies?) We now read newspaper stories about violent and sexual crimes committed by women. It turns out they have been committed by men. This literally changes our perception, our understanding, of our world. This is dangerous for women and for younger people, learning to navigate the world. How do they feel, when they discover our newspapers literally publish the opposite of the truth?

9. We are eroding the integrity of science. Biological sex is binary and immutable. This basic foundational scientific knowledge is being undermined.

10. We are eroding the integrity of statistics and data gathering. The 2021 Census will allow people to record their sex according to gender markers on documents such as passports. How many people in this country even know that you can change your gender marker on your passport with ease? (Where was the democratic consensus for this?)

11. We are undermining our democracy. There is no democratic remit for the aggressive roll-out of gender ideology that goes on across our public institutions, under the Conservative Government. No democratic remit said yes to men self-identifying into women's prisons, or yes to the 2021 Census undermining the concept of biological sex, or yes to police forces recording our online discussion about sex and gender as hate, or yes to any of the above.

Please could we meet with you to discuss how the Conservative Government could do more to help turn the tide on this pernicious ideology?

Conservatives for Women

The Police are losing women's trust. We object.

Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:14:54 GMT

We have written to the College of Policing to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of the LGBT+Police Network.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 26 February 2021.

We have written to the College of Policing to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of the LGBT+Police Network. Our contention is that some of their behaviour breaks the Police Code of Ethics. We outline this in our letter which we publish below. We look forward to hearing their response and we will keep you posted.

---------------------------------

Dear Sir,

We are writing to the College of Policing in its capacity as the body which sets professional standards for the police. These cover: 'standards for key areas of policing which help forces and individuals provide consistency and better service for the public' This incorporates 'professional practice, standards and guidance, ethics and integrity'. You also oversee the Code of Ethics for the Police.

We would like to make a formal complaint about the practices of the LGBT+Police Network, and, in particular, its social media arm on Twitter, which can be found at @LGBTpoliceuk.

As an example of the behaviour of this organisation, and the output of its social media account, I would like to draw your attention to three tweets.

1) " We believe that trans men are men, trans women are women, and non binary people are fabulous".

2) " Today's historical event is in 2003 when the International Olympic Committee drew up guidelines for trans athletes. These guidelines paved the way to allow trans people to compete in the @Olympics with the gender they identified with"

3) " We have a short message for all those posting hateful comments. We see you, we've reported your comments and we won't stop supporting trans and non binary people."

Our complaint is, firstly, that these tweets break the Police Code of Ethics. Secondly, we would like to make you aware that behaviour like this, from the police, is causing grave concern for women. We are worried that the police do not take seriously the impact that 'gender ideology' has on our safety.

a) These tweets break the Police Code of Ethics.

The Code of Ethics commits police to acting with "fairness and impartiality". These tweets break this rule. You must know that 'gender ideology' is highly political; is contested; and is of great concern to many women.

The first tweet says that 'trans women are women'. We know that they are not; biological sex is binary and immutable. The idea that men can just 'self-identify' as women endangers women. It is entirely inappropriate for the police, or any arm of it, to take a strong public position on this debate, particularly this position.
The second tweet condones the inclusion of men (who self-identify as women) in women's sports. Again this is highly contested and is a political controversy that is current and very much unresolved across all areas of sport.
The third tweet is addressed to people who have pointed out what I have said above. We have been accused of hate, by the police. We have been 'reported'. When we ask who we have been reported to, these questions go unanswered. This discourteous behaviour breaks any number of elements of the Ethics Code. For example these:
"show compassion and empathy, as appropriate, to people you come into contact with"
"treat people according to their needs".

We would also argue that these tweets break a further aspect of the Code of Ethics, which states "I will not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly". Sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act. So is gender reassignment. The police appear to be preferencing a very broad interpretation of 'gender reassignment', and one that is not supported in law; over the concerns of women as a sex.

b) Concerns about the impact of 'gender ideology' on our safety

The third tweet tells a number of women that we have 'been reported'. For what? The implication is that we are warned not to engage in political debate about the meaning of the words 'man' and 'woman', and the implications of allowing men to 'self-identify' into women's spaces. The police seem to have decided that one side of this argument has won. This has not been condoned by Law or by Parliament. The Conservative Government, after a long consultation, chose not to make changes to the Gender Recognition Act which would have made it easier for people to get legal recognition for a change to their 'gender' marker on official documents.

Y et a public-facing police twitter account declares that 'trans women are women'. If this is so, think of the implications for women. Men, any man, can self-identify into spaces that are designated for women, such as prisons, refuges, shelters, hospital wards, toilets, and changing rooms. It hardly needs to be pointed out that this, without any gate-keeping, places women at risk. It erodes barriers of protection for women that we would argue have existed since we began the process of becoming human. The great majority of men, and the instruments of community and state, have worked to put in place safeguarding protections for women. Now we watch astonished, as the police seem to be complicit in eroding this safeguarding. This is a matter of existential seriousness for women. We fear for our safety as we see the police, who are supposed to be here to protect us, complicit in its erosion.

Requested actions

a) Please could you explain how people can find out whether they have been 'reported' by @LGBTpoliceuk, alongside an explanation of who they have been reported to.

b) Please could you examine the activities of this group with the intent of enforcing the Police Code of Ethics.

c) Please could we meet with you to discuss this, as a matter of urgency.

Do let us know and thank you.

ConservativesforWomen

The Police are captured by gender ideology - the Conservative Government must act

Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:55:43 GMT

Those of us who watch and despair as 'gender ideology' marches through our institutions know that the police are well-captured by the cult.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 23 February 2021.

This weekend provided examples of just how bad it has become. Many women in this country now feel deeply worried, scared even. Rather than making us feel safe, the police are contributing to a feeling of deep unease.

This weekend, an outfit calling themselves the National LGBT+ Police Networ k tweeted a short commemoration of TIM (trans-identifying-man) Roberta Cowell. I commented, saying 'He walked out on his children one day and they never saw him again. Late in life he said he regretted what he had done.' @LGBTpoliceUK suggested that I refrain from misgendering.

When I responded again, a bit later, things got worrying. I said something obvious : 'biological sex is binary & immutable & matters profoundly for the safety of women'. The police reps replied: 'Our network in no way condones or supports any comments made from your account Caroline. We believe that trans men are men, trans women are women and non binary people are fabulous'.

Let's unpick that.

In response to me saying that biological sex is binary and immutable, the police response is that they do not condone or support my comment.
In response to me saying that biological sex matters profoundly for the safety of women, the police response is that they do not condone or support my comment.
Then the police say 'trans women are women'.

No wonder we are starting to feel unsafe .

The latter statement is unhinged from any grounding in science. Let us be clear that it is a form of ideological extremism - and it is coming from our police. If transwomen (trans-identifying-men) are women; with no ifs and no buts and no caution or concern, here is what it means. Male prisoners can self-identify into women's prisons. Men can self-identify into women's refuges and safe-spaces. A man can 'self-identify' to demand that he be handled (e.g. searched) by female police officers. Men can self-identify into women's changing rooms, and into women's loos in noisy crowded pubs and nightclubs. Men can self-identify into women's hospital wards. Men can self-identify into intimate health-care services for women... All of this not just condoned, but actively promoted, by representatives of the police. And we are meant to feel safe?

Then, if you want to challenge all this: politely; grounded in science and reason; proferring concepts of fairness and boundaries and competing rights; that route slowly closes off too. Over the same weekend, the police force in Wirral paraded a sign telling us that it is an offence to be offensive . Some people consider 'misgendering' to be offensive; pointing out that a 'trans-woman' is a biological male to be offensive... See where this quickly heads? No wonder someone tweeted 'That's one of the most chilling things I've ever seen. This makes me afraid of the police - well done'.

Of course, the police in Wirral are wrong and have admitted it . However, it indicates the sheer scale of institutional capture. Remember the story of the Emperor with no clothes? When the Wirral police: planned their sign; worked up the copy; ordered the van and billboard; booked the slot; took the photo; posted on social media;... was there no-one, no-one, in their midst who could tell them they were grossly misrepresenting the law? When practically every user on twitter could do so?

The situation is unacceptable. It is making women feel deeply worried; legitimately scared. At ConservativesforWomen we will be writing to our MPs and to the Minister for Policing, Kit Malthous e and we will ask them to act. We will also write to the Independent Office for Police Conduct to complain. We will ask that the conduct of the LGBT+ Police Network - and the Wirral Police - be investigated.

We will point out, again, that gender ideology, and the denial of the reality of biological sex, places women in danger. Please do the same - and let us know how you get on.

The Office of National Statistics is not fit for purpose. Senior leaders must go.

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 20:12:25 GMT

They must be held to account - get a grip of your organisation and defend science, truth, data integrity - or go.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for eight years. Published on 15 February 2021.

A couple of weeks ago there was good news for those who care about the grounding of our society in reality . The Times reported that in the forthcoming 2021 Census, the question which asks people for their sex would require people to answer with their sex. Like that should be a surprise. The Office of National Statistics would allow a small exception for the tiny number of people who have gone through the legal process of obtaining a 'gender recognition certificate' - about 5000 people in the UK.

This moderate good sense was a surprise coming from the ONS because it is so deeply mired in gender ideolog y . And, indeed, it turned out to be too good to be true. The ONS has now officially confirmed that the 2021 Census will allow a form of sex 'self ID' (more details below) and it has produced a document explaining this decision. My conclusion upon reading this document is that the senior team at the ONS is not fit for purpose and needs to go . They are participating in the entrenchment across our society of an ideology that undermines science and truth; free speech and democracy. An ideology that threatens women's language, safety, and rights; and endangers vulnerable children. If the leadership of the ONS won't stand up for accurate statistics, data integrity, and science, they need to be replaced by people who will.

Let's explore the woeful situation. The final decision, on the sex question, for the 2021 Census, is that people will be allowed to reference either their biological sex or 'legal documents such as a birth certificate, gender recognition certificate, or passport'. Let's look at how this decision was reached and what it says about the state of the ONS and our wider democracy.

In the ONS 'methodology' document explaining the decision, the drift into ideology is apparent from the start. The focus is not on science but on avoiding offence. There are some definitions, including this for the 'trans' population: 'where the gender they identify with is different to their sex registered at birth'. However 'ONS is aware that not all members of these populations identify with this terminology'. It's all there, already, in that last sentence: the fear of causing offence, the 'sort-of' apology over terminology, the prioritising of 'identity'.

But it gets worse. Across the increasingly irrational debate about sex and gender, a core of sanity has been clung to: that of a difference between sex and 'gender'. If you want to promote gender ideology, but recognise that you can't get around the fact that sex is binary and immutable, you state a preference 'gender': a 'true self' on the inside. Follow the debate; you'll see the distinction everywhere. The ONS has abandoned the distinction. The ONS says 'Sex can be defined in different ways'. 'These are sex as: registered at birth, recorded on birth certificate, recorded on legal/official documents, living / presenting, and self-identified'. Staggering. Gender ideologues do not go this far...

Women have become 'traditional women'. The ONS conducted 'in-depth interviews with trans people, traditional women’s groups and the general population...' The ONS normalises the term 'cisgender' - like we want people to explore body disassociation. In America you can buy cross-sex hormones online ; via a bottle, your dreams will come true.

How did the ONS finally decide which of the sex options to run with? Science and truth did not even get a look in... 'We evaluate different concepts of sex in relation to impact on overall census response, sex question response, and individuals right to privacy'. It seems that the goal of the Census has become to get more people to fill in the Census, while not offending them.

In a nutshell, the ONS decided to abandon science, promote ideology, mainstream body disassociation, because it thought more people would fill in the Census. Final conclusion: 'The least impact is anticipated if sex as living / presenting is collected. However, the adjacent concept of sex recorded on legal/official documents is also anticipated to have low impact.'

Now, let's go back to the actual guidance: the ONS has decided that you may answer the sex question by providing the sex used on your legal documents, such as 'your passport'. How many people in this country know that you can change the sex marker on your passport without requiring a gender recognition certificate? You just provide 'a new birth or adoption certificate showing your acquired gender' or 'a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming your change of gender is likely to be permanent'. What would a doctor base such a letter on? More importantly, when did the Home Office make this change? Who decided that we should be allowed to state something on our passports which isn't true? When was the public consultation? Democracy is being undermined.

Notice the ratchet effect? Someone persuaded the Home Office to allow this. Passports are just travel documents after all, flashed at the airport. So, come on ONS, if the Home Office allows self-ID, get with the beat! James Kirkup wrote in The Spectator about a document that reveals the 'remarkable tactics of the trans lobbyists'. 'One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?' The ratchet effect is surely part of the process. Kirkup quotes another recommended tactic: 'Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.' Exposure? That means public scrutiny, democracy. Shoved aside.

In fact, even while I have been writing this article, it has been pointed out that someone has already pushed the ONS decision aside. Is the senior team at the ONS even aware that someone has done this? They have produced and published a brochure that has by-passed the corporate decision and put full self-identification back on the table. Has someone gone rogue? This is not an organisation which seems in control.

None of this is acceptable. Scientists and statisticians have been doing everything in their power, practically begging the Office of National Statistics to see sense . But to no avail. Ideology closes minds and shuts down debate.

Our individual involvement in our democracy has never mattered more. We need to tell our government to act. The senior leadership team at the Office of National Statistics seems to be hopelessly out of their depth; not in control of their own institution. They must be held to account - get a grip of your organisation and defend science, truth, data integrity - or go.

The Mud March

Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:02:24 GMT

On Saturday, 9 February 1907, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies organised the largest and most peaceful pro-suffrage demonstration of its time.

Our first in an occasional series of guest blogs: the parallels are clear, even after 114 years. Thanks to Martha Blackmann for this evocative piece, 13 February 2021.

It was a triumph: led by a brass band, followed by a procession of carriages and motor cars carrying flags bearing the initials WS, and by marchers carrying red and white banners and bouquets of red and white flowers. The marchers - up to 7,000 of them - wore matching red and white rosettes.

As the first large procession organised by the NUWSS, it required a great deal of smoothing of "all sensibilities and political disagreements” beforehand in order to reconcile many separate suffrage groups with differing political sensibilities and very different points of view about how to achieve their objective, but it was a triumph of diplomacy. Only the Pankhursts’ Women’s Political and Social Union declined to attend in an official capacity but many of its leading members were there anyway: Christabel Pankhurst, Annie Kenney, Nellie Martel and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence. According to historian Diane Atkinson: “Belonging to both organisations, going to each others' events, and wearing both badges was quite usual".

The whole event was organised by Pippa Strachey. She had no experience of planning anything similar but she approached it with such strong organisational skills that she was given responsibility for the planning of all future large processions of the NUWSS. In fact, up until then, Pippa Strachey had shown little interest in women’s suffrage until Emily Davies - the co-founder of Girton College and best friend of the fabulous Garrett sisters, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Millicent Garrett Fawcett - convinced her of the importance of the cause.

Pippa Strachey made it a whole team effort by enlisting help from each of the various suffragist groups. The Artists’ Suffrage League produced posters and postcards for the march. The red and white rosettes for the marchers had been produced by Maud Arncliffe Sennett, a leading member of the Actresses’ Franchise League. The London Society for Women’s Suffrage placed ads in several newspapers to publicise the event and to encourage women from all walks of life to attend and support the march. Everyone played a part. It was a stroke of genius.

In fact, creating a sense of common purpose and unity was crucial. Rachel Strachey, a close ally of Millicent Fawcett but no relation to Pippa, wrote:

“In that year, the vast majority of women still felt that there was something very dreadful in walking in procession through the streets; to do it was to be something of a martyr, and many of the demonstrators felt that they were risking their employments and endangering their reputations, besides facing a dreadful ordeal of ridicule and public shame.”

Does that strike a chord today?

In all, around forty organisations from all over the country chose to participate. The only thing that couldn’t be planned for was the weather. On the day, it rained incessantly. "Mud, mud, mud" everywhere, according to Millicent Fawcett. In fact, it was commemorated as The Mud March.

That morning, thousands of women congregated at the statue of Achilles near Hyde Park Corner and organised themselves into sister groups in strict order of precedence. The march was led by Millicent Fawcett; Emily Davies, the Mistress of Girton College; Lady Frances Balfour, sister-in-law of the former Conservative Prime Minister; Pippa’s mother Lady Jane Strachey; Rosalind Howard, the Countess of Carlisle; and Eva Gore-Booth, younger sister of Countess Constance Markiewicz. They were followed by women in the professions and then by large contingents of working class women from northern and other cities, marching under banners that proclaimed their varied trades.

At 2.30pm, the women had a procession order that stretched down Rotten Row and the march set off with the brass band leading. Despite the dreadful weather, thousands of spectators lined the route to watch the unusual sight of “respectable women marching in the streets".

Actress and suffragist Katharine Frye joined the march at Piccadilly Circus and noted the reaction of the spectators: "Not much joking at our expense and no roughness". The reporter from The Observer recorded that "there was hardly any of the derisive laughter which had greeted former female demonstrations" although The Morning Post, now The Telegraph, deplored the "scoffs and jeers of enfranchised males who had posted themselves along the line of the route, and appeared to regard the occasion as suitable for the display of crude and vulgar jests".

Rachel Strachey noted, “They walked, and nothing happened. The small boys in the streets and the gentlemen at the club windows laughed, but that was all. Crowds watched and wondered; and it was not so dreadful after all ... The idea of a public demonstration of faith in the Cause took root.”

As it approached Trafalgar Square, the march split into two groups: the representatives from the North held a pre-arranged open air meeting at Nelson’s Column while the main body of marchers carried on to a political meeting at Exeter Hall chaired by a sympathetic Liberal MP, Walter McLaren. Keir Hardie of the Labour Party spoke from the platform, offering his support.

Press coverage was extensive - it was front page news in almost every newspaper - and the cause of women’s suffrage enjoyed more publicity in a week “than it had enjoyed in the previous fifty years".

The Daily Mail strongly supported women’s suffrage and carried an eyewitness account by Constance Smedley, playwright and founder of the Lyceum Club. The Morning Post, also supportive, reported extensively on the speeches and noted with dismay that the marchers had had to "run the gauntlet of much inconsiderate comment". The Graphic, later the Daily Sketch and also pro-suffrage, carried an illustration of a man holding aloft a pair of scissors which suggested “that demonstrating women should have their tongues cut out". The Daily Mirror, neutral on the subject, did a large photospread and praised the march’s conduct and professionalism.

The Times opposed women’s suffrage but thought the event "remarkable as much for its representative character as for its size". The Observer warned that “women are not ready for the vote”; that their “vital civic duty and natural function ... is the healthy propagation of race", and that the women’s movement should “educate its own sex rather than seeking to confound men". The Sphere, a now defunct pictorial journal, carried a montage of photographs under the banner headline "The Attack on Man's Supremacy".

Four days later on Wednesday, 13 February 1907, NUWSS leaders met with the Parliamentary Committee for Women's Suffrage to discuss plans for a private member’s Bill. On 26 February, Willoughby Dickinson, Liberal MP for St Pancras North, published the text of his bill proposing that women should have the vote subject to the same property qualification that applied to men. This would have been relatively few but the House of Commons closed the Ladies’ Gallery for the second reading - no doubt to ward off “dangerous women” doing dangerous things like shouting and unfurling banners - and the Bill was talked out.

It took another eleven years before women over 30 were accorded the right to vote - well, World War I had taken its toll on the male population and women outnumbered men so their numbers had to be restricted somehow to prevent them forming the majority - and it was a full 21 years before all women were enfranchised on exactly the same terms as men.

The Mud March was the largest ever pro-suffrage public demonstration of its time and although it brought no immediate gain on the parliamentary front, its significance for women’s rights was considerable. It became the template, the gold standard, for all future marches bringing together as it did a coalition of sister groups marching in unity.

That’s why Pippa Strachey, organisational genius, is our Woman of the Day.

The Census should not be used to promote Trans-humanist Ideology. Call to Action!

Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:51:58 GMT

'We are on the brink of losing robust, high quality data on sex in the UK. Once gone, we may never get it back'.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for eight years. Published on 11 February 2021.

Several weeks ago, those of us who care about the rights and dignity of women and girls thought we had won an important victory in the current 'gender wars'. The Times newspaper reported that the Office of National Statistics has belatedly remembered that sex is real and matters, not just because science and truth matter, but for the myriad of policy applications that use data captured by the Census. Why capture data that isn't accurate? What is the Census for?

The Times reported that, for the forthcoming 2021 Census, the ONS has been persuaded to require people to answer the sex question with either biological sex, or legal sex if they hold a gender recognition certificate, rather than via 'self-ID' as had been planned. That wasn't perfect. Why not just biological sex? After all, the ONS still plans a separate voluntary 'gender identity' question which will roll gender ideology out to every household in the country. (As if that were a good thing - body disassociation anyone?) I explored the history and the implications of this here .

We then waited for the official announcement from the ONS; yet nothing was forthcoming despite the Census being weeks away. Now, according to FairPlayforWomen, the ONS is wavering again. A spokes-person has said people will be able to report whatever is on their 'legal documents' . The trouble is this is a form of self-identification - these documents can be changed without someone obtaining a gender recognition certificate.

A group of Academics have written to the Times , again expressing their concerns. They say 'Sex remains a key determinant of outcomes across the full spectrum of public policy areas.... The public servants leading this process have failed to engage in a serious and timely way with those outside government who have expertise on the collection and use of population data in the social sciences. No robust evidence or argument has been provided to support such a fundamental change.'

They go on to say 'We are on the brink of losing robust, high quality data on sex in the UK. Once gone, we may never get it back'. Fairly serious, isn't it? It means the 'trans-humanists' have won - those who argue, against science, that sex is not real and does not matter. That an ineffable male or female soul is more important and should determine public policy and how we live. No more single sex spaces for women and girls. No more single sex sports. Women's language - evolved and evolving since we became human - is bigoted.

Well, we'll fight back while there is breath in our sexed bodies. Not just for the safety, dignity, privacy, of women and girls (and men and boys). We'll fight back literally for the grounding of our society and how we live in science and reason. As biologist, Colin Wright, wrote 'I'm frequently asked why I focus so much on the nature of biological sex. It's because in my view this may be reality's last stand. If this undeniable fact can be denied en-masse, then we become hostages to chaos. We simply cannot afford to lose our collective tether to reality.'

WomensPlaceUK have issued a call to actio n . They've collaborated with others to write a report: 'The Political Erasure of Sex. Sex and the Census'. This traces the history of the capture of the Office of National Statistics by activists promoting trans- and gender ideology. They've outlined why it matters. They've sent the report to every MP in the country. They asked us all to write to our MPs to draw their attention to the report. They've provided a template letter . Most importantly, they'd like us to ask our MPs to meet with us so that we can share our concerns.

Sex is real. It matters. It matters for the dignity, safety, and privacy of women and girls. It matters for the actual physical and mental health of men and women. It matters that we choose to ground our society in science and reality. Please put these points in your letter when you write to your MP.

Women deserve better than the SNP

Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:27:12 GMT

The votes of women in Scotland are now very much up-for-grabs!

Written by a Conservative Party member, 28 January 2021

Important Scottish parliament elections are scheduled for May 2021 and the expectation (based on latest polling) has been that the SNP will emerge as the biggest party, possibly even with a majority. Independence has been predicted to be the biggest issue, but how important will women's sex-based rights be? It's certainly a big deal for women in Scotland, and it’s getting bigger by the day!

Thanks principally to Nicola Sturgeon, many women now feel totally betrayed by the SNP. So who will step-in, and give these politically homeless women a home?

We already knew that the SNP had been fully captured by the ‘woke', but Nicola Sturgeon has this week added fuel to the fire and further enraged women in Scotland with her video on “transphobia” . The video was published in response to reports that: “mainly young people” were leaving the SNP following amendments to the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill that would allow, reasonably you might think, for at least some discussion or criticism of matters relating to “transgender identity”:

In the video Ms Sturgeon, true to form, panders to gender ideology activists and completely neglects to recognise the genuine concerns of women. She gets a predictable response from women in Scotland: cries of “rampant misogyny” abound on social media.

Surely now, one would think, the Scottish Tories will put women's sex-based rights as a headline policy?

In the broader context, the Tories must see that the legal challenge from a grassroots group (@forwomen.scot) to the redefinition of the word "woman" in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is a very significant political development. The legal challenge presents an opportunity for a political party to distinguish itself by giving unambiguous support to that challenge. In the current climate, where women are ignored and under attack, women’s sex-based rights must surely be seen as a moral duty as well as a popular and vote-winning strategy.

There is another factor too. Now that Michelle Ballantyne has taken on the leadership of Reform UK in Scotland, it will be interesting to see what their policies are in respect of women. Reform UK is currently completely silent on the matter of women’s rights in its published policies, but this must surely change because the issue is one that cuts to the very heart of the 'woke' agenda that Nigel Farage and Reform UK members want to address. A full-out assault on the SNP's anti-women agenda by Reform UK would be a vote-winning strategy, notwithstanding Reform UK's pro-Union stance.

The question is: will the Scottish Tories decide to put women's sex-based rights as a headline policy alongside the Union, or will Reform UK alone be left to mop-up the votes of the politically homeless women of Scotland?

The Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party should remember that women vote; they should also remember what Nigel Farage is capable of (see Brexit for details). Reform UK in Scotland needs something to really distinguish itself from the Tories; women’s sex-based rights could be it.

We must turn the tide and re-establish the right of every woman in this country to enjoy the dignity, privacy, safety and well-being afforded by sex-based rights and protections. A major political force that attaches itself unambiguously to this cause in Scotland may well be favourably surprised at the ballot box in May.

I hope and trust that the Scottish Conservatives will be that party.

Children's Minister and DfE captured by gender ideology and "dangerous groupthink"

Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:07:27 GMT

Written by a Conservative Party member

I challenge the Children's Minister, Vicky Ford, and the Department for Education, on their use of language regarding "period products”. The Minister tweeted on 19 Dec 2020 that: "...period products is an issue that largely affects women and girls."

"...Largely"? So boys and men also need period products, do they?

This is a prime example of what Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities, recently called "dangerous groupthink" and "virtue signalling”. We all know that only women and girls menstruate, so we should ask: why would Vicky Ford want to give the impression that she believes boys also menstruate? The only answer I can think of, is that she wishes to signal her virtue to the gender ideologists who now seek to control our every word, even at the expense of truth and reason.

Vicky Ford presumably places groupthink and virtue-signalling above science, truth and reason. She knows that only females menstruate; she is not stupid. We should be concerned that she feels the need to pretend to believe otherwise. Why engage in word-games that deny the reality of women's and children's lives?

Vicky's tweet

If you have time to read the comments beneath the tweet, you will see how disappointed and angry women are that a government minister would play such games, particularly after some very encouraging statements to the contrary from other ministers. The views of women are nicely summarised in this response from the Conservative Women's Pledge: "No. Only women and girls menstruate. Fact. Sex matters. Obfuscation only helps those who seek to undermine the rights of women."

One would hope that Vicky Ford might have taken the comments on board, but clearly she has not. Despite the obvious outrage from women's groups, Vicky and the DfE have this week (on 21 January 2021), contrived to publish nearly 700 words on the government's "free period product scheme" for schools, without once using the words: girl, young woman or female. This is a remarkable example of deliberately 'woke' communication. It is also misleading and confusing to both girls and boys.

You can read what Vicky Ford and the DfE published here .

The drafting is clearly very deliberate. No mention of 'girls', who are the pupils who menstruate and who need the products.

Instead, we have:

"No pupil should ever have to miss school because of their period"
"for all young people"
"menstruating-age pupils"
"products for your pupils"
"available to everyone who needs them"

This is the language of gender ideology. This is how gender ideologists seek to undermine sex and sex-based rights. Boys obviously do not menstruate, but you wouldn’t think so from reading this official Gov.UK publication. It is time for this nonsense to stop.

It is alarming that both a government minister and a government department appear to have been captured by gender ideology, and the Conservative government should be very concerned indeed.

The government should be concerned because it is obvious to anyone who has been awake during 2020 that the Conservative Party has won many supporters by taking a sensible stance on gender ideology and women's sex-based rights. There are many examples on social media of Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and SNP voters explicitly saying they will not vote for a party that promotes gender ideology. I am sure that this is recognised within the party, and this needs to be pointed out to Vicky Ford and to the DfE, as well as to any other MP and government department that stops using language that is grounded in truth, reason, science and reality.

We know that the Conservative Party is the only major political party that can be relied upon to protect women and girls. None of the other parties seem even to know what a woman or a girl is!

We have been encouraged by recent events including the government's decision not to implement changes to the Gender Recognition Act to permit easier self-id of gender; and by the sentiments of Liz Truss's recent 'anti-woke' speech. It was therefore all-the-more disappointing and of great concern to see the Children's Minister, and the DfE, communicating with such obvious disregard for truth and reality. The Conservative Party must stop its MP’s pandering to gender ideology in ways that undermine sex-based rights.

It is clear that a small ideological elite with very different social and political values is trying to influence Conservative government policy, and it is vital that the voice of true conservatives be heard. The overwhelming majority of people know that only females menstruate, but many people are afraid to say what they really think or stand-up against the lunacy of gender ideology because they’re afraid for their jobs and reputations. That means that Conservative politicians have to be brave and call-out colleagues when they suggest that it is not only women and girls who menstruate.

Maintaining a clear and vocal position on the importance of sex and sex-based rights and protections, under-pinned by truth and reality-based language, is not only morally right; it will give the Conservative Party an enormous advantage with voters and this will become increasingly important as public awareness of this issue grows over the coming months and years, as it most certainly will.

When a Children's Minister, and a government department with responsibility for education, communicate based on ideology rather than truth and reality, we should be very concerned indeed.

We expect the government and the Conservative Party to take our concerns seriously, and put a stop to this nonsense.

Complain to the BBC about its promotion of gender ideology. Again - and then again.

Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:59:35 GMT

It's an extraordinary world where our Government has to instruct our schools not to work with the BBC.

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years.

Over the weekend, Sarah Vine, writing for the Daily Mail, reminded readers of the now notorious, BBC '100 genders' clip. This piece of programming, funded by taxpayers, produced and promoted by the BBC, is aimed at our 9 - 12 year olds. It's intention? To promote gender ideology to children.

In the clip, which forms part of the BBC Teach 'Relationship and Sex Education' material, a child asks: ‘What is the difference between sex and gender?’ A teacher responds: ‘Sex would be the body parts that you are born with. Gender would be who you are on the inside.’ Just like that: our bodies as mere 'parts'; there is some sort of gendered 'true self' inside.

In the clip, a boy asks: ‘What are the different gender identities?’ An adult responds: ‘D’you know, that’s a really really exciting question to ask!’ Just like that - if you are a kid and want to be regarded as exciting and interesting, navel-gaze about your gendered identity. (Call your friends 'transphobic' if they look bored or confused. Later, you can medicalise for life and render yourself sterile attempting to align your body and 'true self'.)

In the clip, an adult says: 'You know, there are so many gender identities . . . we’ve got male and female . . . but there are over 100, if not more, gender identities!’ Remember this is in an educational programme, where kids are meant to be able to trust the adults; assume that they are passing on science, knowledge, truth. But the so-called 100 gender identities? They're made up, on the fly, by someone, somewhere, out there on the internet. This is how bad they are; meet absorgender . Imagine wanting to introduce this world to kids.

The Times newspaper first drew the public's attention to the BBC's unashamed promotion of gender ideology well over a year ago. But the clip is still sitting there for our kids to access. The Keira Bell case has highlighted the harm done to vulnerable children by the 'inner gender' narrative. But the BBC still promotes the ideology.

What makes it worse is that the Government has now made it explicity clear that gender ideology should not be promoted to school children via schools or school materials. The full relevant paragraph from the Department of Education's Relationship and Sex Education Guidance is here :

'We are aware that topics involving gender and biological sex can be complex and sensitive matters to navigate. You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. While teachers should not suggest to a child that their non-compliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support.'

Note these words from the Department of Education: 'you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material'. It's an extraordinary world where our Government has to instruct our schools not to work with the BBC. Yet how can this be interpreted otherwise? (And why should we keep on paying?)

The risk now, during Covid, is that more children might access this material directly. The children most susceptible to the narrative that they may have been born in the wrong body are often the most vulnerable. They might be same-sex attracted. They might be autistic-spectrum. They might be in other ways vulnerable - perhaps hating puberty and feeling isolated, fearful, seeking escape. Gender ideology offers a world of both specialness and magical cure. All will be well when you recognise your 'true self'. It is extraordinary that in none of the material aimed at kids do you ever see the reality of puberty suppressants, hormone injections, surgery, medical complications, sexual dysfunction, sterilisation, regret, pain...

Enough is enough. Write again to your MP to complain. Complai n again to the BBC. Follow the lead of TransgenderTrend and write directly to the Director of BBC Children’s & Education . Copy in Tim Davie, the Director General. Follow the lead of Baroness Nicholson and write also to Oliver Dowden , the relevant Secretary of State.

It shouldn't be this hard should it? But for as long as it is this hard, we must keep on objecting. Nobody should be pushing harmful pseudo-science at our children. Least of all, our national broadcaster, the BBC.

The BBC's reporting on gender ideology is reckless. This can't be allowed to continue.

Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:00:21 GMT

Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years.

How the BBC presents and reports on gender ideology is irresponsible. In the words of Tory Peer, Baroness Nicholson: 'At best, this represents a systemic failure of the BBC’s impartiality, editorial standards and journalistic competence. At worst, it is redolent of harmful activism'. We agree with her. Oliver Dowden, the responsible Minister of State must act to curtail further harm.

In late December, the BBC ran a news item about trans-identifying children that was full of inaccuracies and irresponsible reporting. This followed the High Court ruling, initiated by Keira Bell, that will restrict children under 16 from accessing "puberty-blocking" drugs. The most serious aspect of the story was how it talked about suicide. In response, a group of doctors wrote to the BBC outlining their concerns. They wrote 'on four occasions in the article it surmises that since the Judicial Review, transgender teens are potentially now at increased risk of suicide. This is not only conjecture, but it could also inflate the risk of suicide in a group of very vulnerable young people'.

James Kirkup wrote about the news item for the Spectator . He described it as 'a horrible failure of journalism'. Kirkup pointed the BBC to advice from the Samaritans about how the media should talk about suicide: 'Steer clear of presenting suicidal behaviour as an understandable response to a crisis or adversity. This can contribute to unhelpful and risky normalising of suicide as an appropriate response to distress.' And: 'Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.'

Following many complaints, the BBC amended its article and inserted an explanatory message. However, as Kirkup wrote 'What that message does not mention is that the changes [made] include removing the central assertion of the original piece. The original text said 'Doctors and parents have told the BBC the ruling could cause distressed trans teens to self-harm or even take their own lives.'Now it says this: 'Doctors and parents have told the BBC the ruling could put already vulnerable trans teens at risk.' In other words, the BBC reported yesterday that a court ruling could cause young people to commit suicide. Today it no longer says that. Such a correction is welcome, of course, but I can’t help thinking that such a fundamental change in the premise of the article warrants at least a clear public acknowledgment, if not outright deletion'.

In the same article the BBC quoted a group called GenderGP: 'The mental health implications of [the ruling] cannot be underestimated, and the risk of self-harm and suicide must be acknowledged'. Following complaints, the BBC felt obliged to let readers know that 'GenderGP is a private company founded by Helen Webberley, who was suspended by the General Medical Council for running an unlicensed transgender clinic'. However this still remains disingenuous. Tory Peer, Baroness Nicholson, has now written to Oliver Dowden, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, about the BBC's coverage of trans issues. With respect to this same piece she writes 'the BBC article omits that for these activities [Helen Webberley] received a criminal conviction'. The Baroness goes on 'Indeed, in proceedings concerning her removal from the Medical Performers List, the First-Tier Tribunal made the following observation: 'In broad terms we found that Dr Webberley was a very unimpressive witness who demonstrated a marked unwillingness to accept obvious points and to seek to avoid giving straight answers' Even worse, says Nicholson, 'following the ruling in Bell v Tavistock, Helen Webberley has publicly vowed to defy and bypass the High Court’s ruling and in effect, the actions and safeguards put in place by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, stating that GenderGP would be “continuing to prescribe blockers for people who are on blockers, and continuing to prescribe new blockers for anybody who is able to give consent to that treatment” As Nicholson says 'it is entirely foreseeable that many vulnerable individuals as a result of this [BBC] article have now ‘discovered’ GenderGP and are at risk of significant harm.' It's hard to disagree with the Baroness, and not to be horrified by the BBC's lack of judgement.

In her letter to Oliver Dowden , Baroness Nicholson asks 'I would be grateful if you would consider examining recent broadcasts which would seem to improperly impinge upon Child Protection, with special reference to health; and drawing to the BBC’s attention the overwhelming responsibility we all have within our health system of avoiding harm'. She concludes her letter: 'At best, this represents a systemic failure of the BBC’s impartiality, editorial standards and journalistic competence. At worst, it is redolent of harmful activism'.

But now the BBC appear to be at it again. This time its a documentary aimed at a younger audience. Several days ago BBC3 started to promote 'DIY Trans Teens' due to be shown January 29.The original promotional blurb , said: 'In the UK, many young trans people are taking matters into their own hands, getting unregulated hormones online and starting their transitions themselves'. The programme will be presented by Charlie Craggs, a self-styled trans-activist. For a documentary where you might want a great deal of caution, care, and medical expertise, I am not sure this bodes well. The write-up said 'Charlie meets a doctor who has been suspended in relation to her work with trans patients'. I suspect that's going to be GenderGP again - see Baroness Nicholson's words above...

And then, with staggering irresponsibility, the unsourced and inaccurate suicide narrative: 'With statistics showing that the attempted suicide rate amongst young trans people is almost double that of cis young people, Charlie Craggs asks what more can be done to support trans teenagers during transition'.

TransgenderTrend has closely followed the ' trans suicide myth '. They write 'Although there is no doubt that children and young people suffering gender dysphoria are an extremely vulnerable group deserving of our support and care, the oft-quoted suicide statistics are from surveys which are not robust and there is no evidence that transition is a ‘cure'.’ Further 'Any risk of suicide is terrifying for parents, every suicide is an awful tragedy and for this reason we feel that exaggerating the risk and constantly using the threat of suicide is unhelpful and irresponsible'. They conclude: 'Michael Biggs analysed the Tavistock GIDS and national suicide figures and found that suicide amongst young children in England and Wales is, thankfully, vanishingly rare and there is no evidence that there is a high rate among trans-identified children'.

Now the blurb for 'DIY Trans Teens' has disappeared . A BBC spokes-person has said “The documentary is not finished so will be broadcast at a later date. It’s not unusual for there to be late changes to the BBC Three schedule.” Perhaps our initial complaints and concern have already had an impact. Perhaps when this programme does reappear it will be more responsible than its original reckless blurb seemed to imply. We can help make that so by complaining to the BBC, even about the blurb, with its cavalier presentation of suicide and unsourced, innaccurate, and irresponsible statistics. We should not have to tolerate the BBC's shoddy journalism and harmful activism. But this also shouldn't be left to all of us. As Baroness Nicholson has suggested, the responsible Minister of State, Oliver Dowden, must surely act.

The public sector promotes gender ideology and the Conservatives are too slow to act

Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:38:00 GMT

Caroline Ffiske spent 8 years as a Conservative Councillor.

The 2021 Census for England and Wales will allow us to self-identify our sex. You couldn't get a better example of how our public institutions are captured by gender ideology. Specifically, the Census guidance tells us 'for those whose gender is different from their sex registered at birth, who may find the [sex] question difficult to answer, the answer they provide does not need to be the same as their birth certificate'. Statisticians and researchers have told the Office of National Statistics how worried this makes them. Sex is real, binary, and immutable - and it matters.

How does this institutional capture work? Out of the blue I came across this on twitter: 'Sat in meeting with senior ONS person. Stated categorically would be illegal to advise people to answer Census sex question with ref to natal sex. Pressed, said had legal advice. Asked for details of advice. Unable to provide any'.

Jolted into action - how can this be true? - I've since learned I shouldn't even be surprised. According to WomansPlaceUK , our very own Equality and Human Rights Commission gives out similar advice. In a recent submission to the Scottish Government's 'working group on sex and gender in data' the EHRC said 'Public bodies are not required to collect information on legal sex and can enable employees and service users to self-identify their sex'. But that's not all. According to the EHRC, not only are public bodies 'not required' to collect data on sex, for public bodies to actually require people to disclose their sex could be a violation of human rights; even potentially a criminal offence.

'There are important human rights considerations that need to be considered when asking employees or service users to state their sex, especially in regard to people’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. Forcing trans employees or service users to disclose their sex as assigned at birth would be a potential violation of their human rights, particularly their right to privacy and dignity under Article 8. In addition, forcing a trans person without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to disclose their legal sex would result in that person being ‘outed’ as a trans person. It is also a criminal offence under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for a person who has acquired the information in an official capacity, to disclose information relating another person's application for a GRC or their gender prior to grant of the GRC. In some instances, forcing people to ‘out’ themselves will also breach the Equality Act 2010.'

Consider the implications of this advice. Women's prisons? Police forces? Health services? Emergency services? Sports clubs? Providers of women's single sex spaces? How do these work? This matters to women.

WomansPlaceUK sought alternative legal advice on this matter. The result was a profoundly different legal opinion . I recommend reading it in full. A small extract is here:

'… privacy rights are not absolute and individuals do not have a universal veto on what can and cannot be asked of them. In any event, the Human Rights Act 1998 requirements apply only to public authorities or to private bodies when exercising public law functions'.

'Although the collation (and potentially the disclosure) of information and data about people’s private lives (which would include details such as their name, age, sex, ..., sexual orientation, sexual history, gender identity, health records, ..., criminal record, whether charges and/or convictions) may be said to engage the rights protected by Article 8 ECHR, it will not constitute (unlawful) interference with those rights provided that the collation and/or disclosure is done in accordance with law and separately may be said to be “necessary” within the context of the proportionality test: that is to say that the collation and/or disclosure must involve the least interference with the right to respect for private and family life which is required for the achievement of the legitimate aim pursued.'

Based on the full legal opinion, WomansPlaceUK wrote to the EHRC asking them to withdraw their statement made to the Scottish Government. They requested that the EHRC contact other organisations to which it has provided similar advice informing them that it is now under review.

I don't know whether the ONS is following EHRC guidance on matters of sex and gender, or someone else's. Our confidence is not boosted by the wider material they publish on such matters. According to the ONS our sex is ' assigned at birth '. Anyone who thinks this, should not be in charge of our national statistics. They also think that sex (not gender, note) is 'generally male or female'. The ONS says that 'gender' is a social construction but goes on to say: 'Gender is increasingly understood as not binary but on a spectrum'. What a load of nonsense. What do they mean by 'increasingly understood'? This, coming from the ONS, implies some scientific integrity. Show me the science. And can't they see how it relies on the most regressive gender stereotypes? Perhaps the ONS is thinking of the widely mocked Mermaids' spectrum with Barbie at one end and GI Joe at the other. How utterly, damagingly, reductive. Imagine being a kid and being presented with this choice , endorsed by adults.

For further information on Gender, the ONS links us to GenderSpectru m. This is an American organisation that advocates talking to children about gender 'from a very young age'. It writes of so-called transgender children: 'we need to underscore that the research on the importance of affirming people in their gender is unequivocal - it is essential for all, and life-saving for som e'. So that is how an uncertain young girl, somewhat vulnerable, perhaps autistic spectrum, possibly gay, sucked into the world of gender ideology, can be so quickly 'unequivocably affirmed' by adults and ends up sterilised and with their breasts removed. And our Office of National Statistics points the way. In case your child is interested, GenderSpectrum has a group for pre-teens (10 - 12). Thanks for the link, ONS.

The ONS is an independent body. But senior appointments are ultimately the responsibility of the sitting Government. The Conservatives must send a message to its senior team. Stop promoting gender ideology. Sort yourselves out - or go.

Similarly, Liz Truss has recently recruited a new EHRC Chief Executive, as well as four new Commissioners . As a matter of urgency, these new Commissioners must instruct the EHRC to start again with its legal advice on matters pertaining to sex and gender. If this approach doesn't work, the Conservatives must act, and the law must be changed.

The Conservatives must recommit to single sex spaces - in legislation

Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:23:30 GMT

Caroline Ffiske spent 8 years as a Conservative Councillor.

In recent weeks, Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, has twice publicly re-stated her views on the importance of single sex spaces.

She first did so via a speech she made to the Centre for Policy Studies think tank. She said '...This focus on groups at the expense of individuals has led to harmful unintended consequences. It has led to the Left turning a blind eye to practices that undermine equality, whether it be failing to defend single-sex spaces, hard fought for by generations of women...'

She did so again via an article in the Daily Mail. She said 'the Left has allowed insidious practices to threaten equality. For example, it has failed to defend the single-sex spaces that were won by the hard work of women over generations'.

It's curious that these statements were made via a swipe at the left rather than directly. Perhaps Truss is fighting within the Conservative Party for a clear mandate to make an unequivocal commitment to women's single sex spaces. If so, we must continue to provide her with the evidence she needs to show that women, as we always have, value our rights to privacy, dignity, and safety. Robert Jenrick, in his role as Minister of Housing, Communities, and Local Government has provided an opportunity for us to do so. He has launched a consultation on toilet provision . It's very simple, calling for free-form email responses.

Jenrick is clear in his views. Gender neutral toilets disadvantage women:

'In recent years, there has been a trend towards the removal of well-established male-only / female-only spaces when premises are built or refurbished, and they have often been replaced with gender-neutral toilets. This places women at a significant disadvantage... Women also need safe spaces given their particular health and sanitary needs... Women are also likely to feel less comfortable using mixed sex facilities, and require more space'.

Jenrick is aware that the 'toilet issue' has come to the fore recently as part of the surge in gender ideology which promotes the idea that 'inner gender identity' can trump biological sex. This has been used to argue that people should be able to use the toilet facilities and other spaces that match their self-identified 'gender' rather than their sex.

'The government wants to ensure dignity and respect for all. The Equality Act provides that sex, age, disability and gender reassignment are protected characteristics. This does not mean that gender-specific toilets should be replaced with gender-neutral toilets. But there should be balanced consideration of how the needs of all those with protected characteristics should be considered, based on the mix of the population and customer demand.'

Balanced consideration is certainly what is needed. In a tolerant world people should be free to express themselves however they like, and to explore different forms of self-expression and self-identity. However, this does not alter the binary nature of biological sex. It doesn't justify over-riding established language used by the overwhelming majority, such as the meaning of words like 'man' or 'woman'. It cannot be used to over-ride women's right to single sex spaces.

I would like to highlight one example of the world we'll end up in if we do allow identity exploration to over-ride established science, language, and the right to single sex spaces. It's an unworkable and unfair world. I refer to the circumstances that led to the 'Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover' case and which Maya Forstater has written about here .

The case concerns Taylor, a man who began to wear women’s clothing to work as part of a process of exploring his gender. According to Forstater 'Taylor was known by his male name Sean during the course of his employment, and was referred to using male pronouns by colleagues and bosses'. Some of the details of the case, as summarised by Forstater, are as follows:

'Sean Taylor had worked at Jaguar Land Rover as an engineer for 20 years. He was based at Gaydon – a complex with some 13,000 staff... In the building where he worked there were over 1,000 people... In March 2017 Taylor told HR that he was transgender... He said he wished to dress in a male style on some days and a female style on others... The case against Jaguar Land Rover was that in not protecting him from colleagues’ comments, and asking him at one point to use the accessible unisex toilets, they engaged in a course of harassment and discrimination... On 24 May 2017 Taylor met with his manager ... [who said] that Taylor should use the disabled toilets... On 19 September 2017 Taylor sent an email to a manager, saying: “I don’t know what toilet to use, I raised this three times with no progress over six weeks. I spoke to HR twice about moving as part of the transition at work, but this was ignored.”.. On 11 October 2017, in a grievance meeting, Taylor again raised the toilet issue, saying: “I am transgender, and I struggle with what toilet I should use…I understand it is difficult to resolve but I am not having any feedback and who will fix it?”... Finally... there were a series of discussions between local management and HR, and it was decided to allow Taylor to use whatever toilets he wanted on any given day:..'

The Employment Trubunal was not satisfied with Taylor being given full access to the female toilets, even as he continued also to use the men's. 'It said that Jaguar Land Rover should have put in place measures to “prevent her having to deal with challenges over the toilets she was using”'. The Employment Tribunal ruled that 'the claimant’s allegations of direct discrimination because of gender reassignment ... are well-founded ' and proceeded to award aggravated damages.

Where do we go from here? What about the rights of women employees at Jaguar Land Rover? Do they not matter? The direction of travel is the elimination of women's single sex spaces. I do not think this is fair or reasonable and it won't make for a better world. Men and women have always sought bodily privacy from one another. To undermine this is transgressive and corrodes our basic humanity and dignity. On top of this is the issue of safety. A woman feels fear if she finds herself alone in a too-private space with a man. This is instinctual. The usefulness of this instinct is self-evident. No-one who cares about the safety of women should seek to over-ride this instinct. And then of course there is rare, but devastating, male violence. So women have every right to continue to fight for their single sex spaces. Men should want them too, for their own dignity, privacy and camaraderie, and for the safety of their friends and families, wives and daughters.

As a Conservative, I believe in being engaged in our democracy - and solution-focused. But it is not for any one of us to presume we have the perfect solution - or the right to demand that our preference is implemented. We are all but one voice amongst many and must work out how to live together. But here is my two-pence worth. I think women's right to single sex spaces should be absolute. There should be no right for men to enter these spaces no matter their gender identity. I think therefore that large workplaces and public spaces should provide some gender-neutral toilet facilities. I do not think these should be existing accessible facilities. But for smaller workplaces, cafes, public spaces we all need to be more flexible and tolerant. If there is a single toilet so be it. If this is a single small bank of toilets which is gender neutral so be it, but this must be designed with safety in mind. A toilet designation can also be changed. If there is no-one in a workplace currently requiring a gender neutral, or an accessible toilet, its designation can be changed for current circumstances. All this said, I am not a toilet or building regulations expert.

What I am clear about is that we must be able to discuss issues of sex and gender openly and tolerantly. We are free and we are able to explore our identities as we please. But this does not create a reason for women to give up their single sex spaces. We are sexed - and sex matters. And we can provide gender neutral spaces and gender neutral opportunities for those who seek them, and who will feel more comfortable in them. These are my views. However, the important thing is for you to tell the Government yours . You can do so using the email address at the bottom of this page. Note that the consultation closes on 29 January. Get typing!

Campaign Census 2021: our letter to Sir Ian

Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:34:13 GMT

Our letter sent to Sir Ian Diamond at the Office for National Statistics, November 2020.

Dear Sir Ian,

We are a group of women writing to you with our concerns about the 2021 Census for England and Wales. Our concerns relate to the sex and gender identity questions.

We first became aware of the issue as a result of a letter in the Times newspaper from some of the country’s leading statisticians and researchers. The letter explained that, according to the guidance on your website, respondents to the Census may answer the sex question in terms of their self-identified gender. (“The sex question on the census will be mandatory, so will need to be answered by all. However, for those whose gender is different from their sex registered at birth, who may find the question difficult to answer, the answer they provide does not need to be the same as their birth certificate.”)

This transforms the sex question into one about gender identity. The Census will no longer provide accurate information about sex and so its usefulness for any form of sex-based data and analysis will be undermined.

There is no science behind the concept of gender - or gender identity. Most people in this country have not heard of the concept; if anything they understand gender to be just another word for sex. However, many of us who have come across the concept regard it as sexist, regressive, and damaging. Please see below our questions and concerns.

What assurance can you give that you will not conflate and confuse sex and gender?

A major concern is that if people are allowed to respond to the sex question with their ‘gender-identity’ then the ONS will have no way of knowing who has done what. You will not have accurate information about sex. But we are also concerned that you might claim instead to have accurate information about gender identity. However, many of us do not regard ourselves as having a gender identity and find the concept sexist and offensive.

What assurance can you give people that you will not interpret the entire sex question as a statement of people’s genders or gender identities? And that the ONS will not use the resultant data in any way to make statements about people’s gender identities? (For example ‘X% of adults in the UK have the gender or gender identity ‘female’).

Will you provide an opportunity for people to object to ideology within the Census?

The ONS, by making the sex question about gender identity, and also including a voluntary question about gender identity, has transformed a scientific and data driven exercise into an ideological one. You are a vehicle for driving gender identity ideology into every household in the country. We consider the ideology harmful, encouraging vulnerable children to explore risky and life-changing medical interventions, and men to determine that they can ‘self-identify’ into women’s spaces.

2. Can we have your assurance that you will provide capacity within the Census for people to object to this ideological roll-out?

What is the opportunity cost and when was the consultation with impacted groups?

Each new question in the census has a direct cost and an opportunity cost. There is a limit to how much new material can be added. There are many competing research issues that could be included in each Census. Many women believe it is women who have most to lose when policy is driven by gender identity rather than sex. We fear the loss of our single sex spaces and the resulting loss of dignity, privacy, safety. However we missed any consultation that the ONS undertook with women’s groups about the gender identity question.

3. Can you outline which scientific and policy communities were consulted to determine that gender identity was the highest priority over anything else that could have been asked? Most importantly can you provide evidence of consultation with Women’s Groups regarding these questions?

What is the justification for the format of Gender Identity question?

We understand that the voluntary gender identity question will be open ended. People will be able to respond however they want to, with an invitation to explore their inner sense of self within the Census. We don’t understand how this provides information of scientific and policy value. We are also concerned that, although it is voluntary, it is somewhat intrusive.

4. Can you provide evidence of your estimation of the usefulness of the question to the population as a whole in terms of research and data analysis? What is the ethical basis for including the question?

If the Census rolls out contested ideology should it be made voluntary?

The guidance to the sex question, and the gender ideology question will roll out gender ideology to every household in the country. Yet it has no basis in science. It is an unproven and highly contested ideology which many people argue damages science and challenges women’s rights. The state surely has no democratic right to roll this ideology into every home. Many people will object strongly. Do you think it would therefore make sense to make the Census voluntary? Women should certainly not be penalised for refusing to participate in something they regard as harmful. We must have a way of registering our deep concern.

Could you meet with us as well as a number of other Women’s Groups to discuss?

Thank you for reading,

Conservatives for Women

Campaign Census 2021: Template letter to MP

Sun, 15 Nov 2020 10:19:54 GMT

Here are some suggested topics you may wish to cover in a letter/email to your MP. You can find your MP’s email address here . The text in bright pink is for guidance purposes. We suggest you also copy it for the attention of (FAO) Rt.Hon. Elizabeth Truss and to Sir Ian Diamond at the Office for National Statistics. You can contact Liz Truss in her role as Minister for Women and Equalities here , and you can contact Sir Ian Diamond at the ONS here .

********

Dear MP (name)

(Address why the Census is important to you or your community, e.g. it drives many government decisions on things such as health and education.) Women are subject to discrimination and disadvantage on the basis of their sex. In order to address this we need to be counted, we must have data, which needs to be robust and of the highest quality.

I (read an article/saw a letter in the newspaper/have seen discussions on social media/attended a webinar, (give a reference if you have one, links at the bottom)) about plans for the next Census.

It appears the Census authorities are considering issuing guidance for the question about sex which will allow people to respond without giving their actual sex. They propose to do this even though there is to be a new, separate question on gender identity.
(If you are also concerned about the Census rolling out the idea that we all have a ‘inner gender identity’, you may want to say so here, although some people feel it is useful to have a question on gender identity so we can get data on how many people do subscribe to this idea.)

See point 2, from the ONS website , here : “The sex question on the census will be mandatory, so will need to be answered by all. However, for those whose gender is different from their sex registered at birth, who may find the question difficult to answer, the answer they provide does not need to be the same as their birth certificate.”

I am concerned (or other words to describe your feelings) that UK wide Census authorities are ignoring the impact of this guidance on the quality of data collected. Many social statisticians, quantitative social scientists and epidemiologists also raised serious concerns almost a year ago (see this letter to The Sunday Times). I believe there is very little point in the immense amount of time, bureaucracy and money spent on gathering Census information if the information itself is inaccurate; it brings the Census into disrepute and will affect compliance.

I am keen to hear your thoughts on this and would also ask you to raise this with the relevant Minister and the Office for National Statistics as a matter of urgency. The Census takes place in the first half of 2021 and guidance will need to be issued (and printed for those using paper returns) well before it takes place.

Your sincerely,

(Ensure you include your name and address so your MP knows you are a constituent) .

********

Example articles: (You may be aware of others)

The Times - Census Sex Policy Captured by Trans Activists

Census Expert No-Platformed

YouTube Webinar

Campaign Prisons: Template Letter to MP

Thu, 05 Nov 2020 21:08:33 GMT

Please note that there are different letters depending on whether you live in England and Wales, or in Scotland.

England and Wales

Dear ****,

Re: The provision of single-sex spaces under the Equality Act (2010): Women in Prison

I am writing to you as I am concerned that the rights of women in prison to single-sex spaces, services and communal accommodation, as provided for in the Equality Act (2010) are not being upheld.

Schedule 3, paragraphs 26, 27 & 28 and Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act provide that males may be excluded from single-sex spaces, services and communal accommodation as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim where the activities that take place within that space and the reasonable expectation of female users of that space is such that they may object to the presence of a male. A male may be excluded even if he has the protected characteristic gender reassignment. He may be excluded notwithstanding the provisions in the Gender Recognition Act (2004) that enable a male, subsequent to meeting certain diagnostic and procedural criteria, to obtain legal recognition of acquired gender, in the form of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and to become ‘a legal woman’. That women require spaces that exclude all males is self-evident: single-sex spaces exist for reasons of safety, dignity and privacy.

However, the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service Policy Framework The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender states otherwise. This policy framework states that males who have a GRC must be housed in the female estate, whilst males who identify as women but who do not have a GRC may be housed in the female estate, subject to the approval of a transgender case board.

This means that in reality, women in prison are housed with biological males. We know that this happens from data provided by the Ministry of Justice in their annual report HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report. Media reports also show that this is happening.

Women in prison are known to be particularly vulnerable. Many experience mental health problems and are at high risk of suicide and self-harm. Many have been the victims of violence and sexual violence at the hands of males, often going back to childhood. It is accepted throughout the Criminal Justice System that female offenders respond best in female-only settings and services. Evidence consistently shows that these are the most effective places for them to tackle the issues surrounding their offending and reduce their offending going forwards.

I am concerned that housing male prisoners in the female prison estate causes understandable distress to women prisoners, puts women at risk and compromises their chances at rehabilitation.

Women in prison are entitled to single-sex spaces in the same way that all women are entitled to them. This right is provided for in law. Here, I note the statement by the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities, on publication of the report Gender Recognition Act Analysis of Consultation Responses by the Government Equalities Office on 22 September 2020 and I am particularly pleased that the Government has restated its commitment to the provisions for single-sex spaces and services for women and girls as stated in the Equality Act. In consideration of this, I believe that Ministry of Justice and HM Prisons and Probation Service policy and practice must be brought in line with the provisions in the Equality Act.

I am asking you to please write to the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Rehabilitation setting forth these concerns and asking that prisons policy is brought in line with the Equality Act to provide women in prison with single-sex spaces, and to the Minister for Women and Equalities asking how the Government intends to ensure that prisons policy framework is brought in line with the Equality Act to provide women in prison with single-sex spaces.

I would welcome the opportunity to speak to you to discuss these issues further.

Yours sincerely,

Scotland

Dear ****,

Re: The provision of single-sex spaces under the Equality Act (2010): Women in Prison

I am writing to you as II am concerned that the rights of women in prison to single-sex spaces, services and communal accommodation, as provided for in the Equality Act (2010) are not being met.

However the Scottish Prison Service policy framework, Gender Identity and Gender Reassignment Policy for those in our Custody states otherwise. This policy framework states that males who identify as women are to be housed in the female estate as this will best serve their needs.

This means that women in prison are housed with biological males. We know that this happens from answers to Freedom of Information requests provided by the Scottish Prisons Service. Media reports also show that this is happening.

I am concerned that housing male prisoners in the female prison estate causes understandable distress to women prisoners, puts women at risk and compromises their chances at rehabilitation.

I am asking you to please write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice setting forth these concerns and asking that prisons policy is brought in line with the Equality Act to provide women in prison with single-sex spaces.

I would welcome the opportunity to speak to you to discuss these issues further.

Yours sincerely,