This is Part 2 of my response to Rebecca Watson’s appalling video, What the Science Says About Trans Teens on Puberty Blockers. In the first part I drew attention to the falsehoods she put out about surgery in teens about which she said this:
And I showed that this is wrong.
Now we are going to hear her mislead her viewers about puberty blockers. We start with her talking about Texas governor Greg Abbott’s directive, which was to investigate families who are transing their kids, for child abuse.
Really? It’s interesting that in 2020 the NHS amended the information about puberty blockers on its website, which once said they were considered fully reversible but no longer does so. There must be a reason they did that.
It now says:
You cannot in all honesty say that the blockers are fully reversible if their long-term effects are unknown
It’s not exactly ‘boom’, according to what I’ve read. It’s a gradual process that can take up to a year before puberty starts.
No. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulates the pituitary gland to secrete the hormones responsible for the development of the gonads. That’s obviously an oversimplification but puberty blockers are GnRH analogues, otherwise known as GnRH blockers or inhibitors. They are a synthetic form of GNRH and – again oversimplifying hugely – they cause a suppression of the secretion of the hormones needed for pubertal development.
Rebecca goes on to say that they have a variety of uses but the ones that are relevant here are, firstly, in delaying puberty in children who start what is called ‘central precocious puberty’, which is defined as starting before the age of 8 in girls and before age 9 in boys. It’s a rare condition, extremely rare in boys. They are approved by the FDA for that purpose.
And they are used for physically healthy adolescents who start puberty within the normal age range but who are diagnosed as suffering from what is called ‘gender dysphoria’. Rebecca doesn’t mention that this particular use is off-label. They are not licensed for treating dysphoric adolescents anywhere in the world.
Nor does she make the point, maybe because it’s so obvious, or maybe because it doesn’t fit what I suspect is her personal agenda of wanting to be on what she is daft enough to think will be the right side of history, that point being that when used to delay puberty in young children – precocious puberty – they are being used to treat an abnormal condition. When used by physiologically normal but mentally and emotionally distressed adolescents, their purpose is to pause their normal, healthy physical development and that should surely give us all pause for thought. As we shall see, Rebecca does not distinguish between the two uses, which beggars belief because it’s a crucial distinction and that’s another failure of her skepticism.
Firstly, note how Rebecca has given the impression of being extremely diligent and conscientious in her research.
Secondly, the description of the paper Rebecca quotes from as a systematic review of the literature could be a bit misleading. Usually, a research paper will state in the title what it is.
As we can see, this paper Rebecca sources is actually an update by a consortium of guidelines on the usage of puberty blockers primarily for children with precocious puberty. What the consortium set out to do was look at how usage has changed over the previous ten years. In the abstract we learn that:
Although there have been many significant changes in GnRHa usage, there is a definite paucity of evidence-based publications to support them. Therefore, this paper is explicitly not intended to evaluate what is recommended in terms of the best use of GnRHa, based on evidence and expert opinion, but rather to describe how these drugs are used, irrespective of any qualitative evaluation.
You would not know this from how Rebecca speaks of the paper and how she describes puberty blockers as if they are the last word in safety and efficacy.
As I said, the bulk of the paper deals with usage in precocious puberty. There is one very short section entitled: Use of GnRHa in the Management of Transgender Adolescents, which is literally two paragraphs. And there is one longer section at the end that deals with all the other conditions.
Now see how she quotes from that paper:
Ah ah ah…you missed something out there, Rebecca. CPP – see it?
That is central precocious puberty. There is no good evidence that the treatment reduces fertility in girls who’ve been treated for the abnormal condition of very early puberty and who, when they approach the normal age of puberty they’ve been allowed to go through it as a normal adolescent. This whole paragraph talks exclusively about kids with precocious puberty and Rebecca leaves out that crucial piece of information even in the one sentence she quotes from.
That paragraph comes from Section 6 of the paper, which is about a page and a half on long-term outcomes of treating children with precocious puberty with puberty blockers – not treating adolescents with gender dysphoria.
If Rebecca had scrolled down to the next paragraph, she would have found the whole new but extremely short Section 7 devoted to trans-identifying adolescents in which we read:
GNRHa therapy prevents the maturation of primary oocytes and spermatogonia and may preclude gamete maturation, and currently there are no proven methods to preserve fertility in early pubertal transgender adolescents.
Here’s a headline from a UK newspaper in 2016.
I don’t know at how young an age they are getting them in the US. Rebecca seems to think a doctor will prescribe them to 10 or 11-year-olds and, seeing how young they are prepared to mutilate kids’ bodies in spite of the medical guidelines, it wouldn’t surprise me.
So on to bone density, which is a subject close to my heart if not my bones but then my bones are old. One of the systematic reviews cited by the consortium’s paper was this:
This is what a systematic review paper normally looks like, stating clearly in the title what it is. When we look at the abstract we learn that the objective was to
review evidence for the physical, psychosocial, and cognitive effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa), gender-affirming hormones, antiandrogens, and progestins on transgender adolescents.
We learned that after searching a number of data banks and looking at papers over a 70-year period, only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria and these were all observational studies. Remember these were not just studies on the puberty blockers but on the other treatments, the wrong sex hormones as well.
So they concluded
Low-quality evidence suggests that hormonal treatments for transgender adolescents can achieve their intended physical effects, but evidence regarding their psychosocial and cognitive impact are generally lacking. Future research to address these knowledge gaps and improve understanding of the long-term effects of these treatments is required.
Now watch this.
Again, this is quoting from a paragraph that is specifically about children with precocious puberty. Three papers are referenced in this paragraph. All three papers are studies of children with CPP.
Again, in the section that is about dysphoria in adolescents, we read:
Additional changes include a decrease in height SDS and BMD along with alterations in body composition consisting of increased body fat and a decreased lean body mass . The impact on BMD is concerning since lumbar spine Z-scores at age 22 years were found to be lower than those observed prior to treatment [122, 123], suggesting a possible permanent decrement in BMD. Thus, it is unclear how long GnRHa can safely be administered.
So what Rebecca Watson has done after claiming to have ‘read far more research than she would have liked’ is give out false information. Shameful.
Makes sense doesn’t it?
OK, thank you if you’ve stuck with me this far.
I have found making these two videos in response to Rebecca Watson’s nonsense rather more upsetting than I thought I would, so I’ve decided to stop here. I think I’ve said enough for the time being to show that Rebecca is misleading people. The other claim she makes that I’m not going to examine now is that puberty blockers are necessary to save lives. That is definitely a claim that one should be extremely skeptical of and, as we’ve seen, Rebecca has lost any ability she may have once had to be skeptical. Like so many erstwhile skeptics she is too subservient to the cult to think clearly and rationally and she has said demonstrably false things about the evidence she herself provides for the other claims she makes. My god she even said this!
Opposite sex? Not even gender – sex! She is actually saying you can change sex.
OK, I’ve had enough of her. Thanks for watching. Bye.
To receive email notifications of future blogs at Peakers Corner, please subscribe. See top of right-hand column.
I am permanently banned from Twitter so please also follow and share announcements by the @trans_peak Twitter account (run by my husband).
It is very concerning to see a high-profile US “skeptic” youtuber promulgate patently false information about serious medical interventions on children and young adults (see here). In my last two videos, I exposed a number falsehoods in a video by Rebecca Watson and, in the hope of reaching a wider audience, I have decided to put transcripts of these videos on my blog. My response is in two parts and it’s better on video!
Recently I watched a youtube video by self-identified “Skepchic” Rebecca Watson entitled What the Science Says About Trans Teens on Puberty Blockers. It was appalling! There is so much in it I would like to comment on that I expect this will run into two or three parts. We’ll see how I get on.
Transgender kids? What are they? I feel like I’ve already said this a million times:
When talking about anything to do with gender ideology or any other controversial topic, it’s important to be clear what you mean!
Does Rebecca agree with Jazz Jennings, who said this:
So does Rebecca think there are girl brains and boy brains and it’s possible for a girl brain to somehow find its way into a boy’s body and vice versa? Because that’s not science – that’s bollocks.
The third video in this series can be viewed here. Transcript below.
Welcome to part 3 of my story about why I reported a bully to the police and what happened when I did. In this part, I am going to talk about those comments he made that were the final straw. Before I do, I want to slip in something that I hadn’t originally planned to say but it was inspired by a new search I’ve just done to see if he is still going on about me and I came across a tweet posted in July this year, 2021.
Katy Montgomerie had asked a totally extraordinary and demented question about whether any trans people have ever threatened legal action against gender critics. He must have known the answer to that. This tweeter responded, quite reasonably, asking if Monty had never heard of one notoriously litigious trans activist – I may have mentioned him before in this series – and they added that the bully I reported to the police had threatened legal action against me, which he did.
So the bully quote tweets it. I’ll just show the first part of his tweet for now. He says:
This is part of the myth he and others are trying to perpetuate that, although I’m in my 60s and about 165 cm tall, in their fevered imaginations I am this gigantic brute who can single-handedly take on men less than half my age and drag them around and thrash them up and down. It’s true that this man has never physically threatened me but that’s not what the tweet he was responding to was about. The question was about threatening legal action, which he did.
Back in May 2019, I received a couple of emails from this bloke about half an hour apart complaining about a blog post I wrote entitled ‘Rattling the honey badger’s cage’. It was about a troll who had tried to leave hundreds of very abusive and sometimes threatening comments on my blog and on the blogs of many other gender critics. Total nutter. I have never bothered to inform the police about this troll but I know of two others who did. One of them only reported him after receiving a clear and credible threat of violence against her. The other person who complained, having gathered evidence of his abuse from nearly 30 people he’s targeted, tells me she pushed as hard as she could but, again, the police weren’t bothered. Honey Badger should really have tweeted some pictures of ribbons or something for the police to take notice.
Anyway, my bully seemed to think that in the blog post I wrote, I was implying that I thought he was the Honey Badger.
In that post, I show Honey Badger’s first comment to me which starts,
And he ends by telling me to fuck off and die and he calls my husband a nonce.
OK, I haven’t shown these emails in full before but I’m now making them available on my site. Just now I’m going to highlight three things from the first email.
First he says,
OK, time for a little reminder of terms he has used to and about women but as long as he doesn’t call us hateful little slags, I’m sure we’re very grateful.
He even says,
Seriously, is this guy for real? Look at what he does expect people to put up with!
This leads to my second highlight:
No, we didn’t fall out. This suggests that we once had some kind of friendly relationship or acquaintanceship. Remember the very first thing he ever said to me was to call me a “raging terf imbecile“, etc. I didn’t even know he existed before he turned up and posted that on Facebook thread I commented on in the last video.
It gets better.
Yes, I had exposed a tiny fraction of his appalling behaviour and lies on my blog and I’ve called him stupid or similar. I mean the cap fits!
But this is far beyond that, this is flat out malicious defamation.
Says the man who has repeatedly and maliciously lied about me in hundreds of tweets and has never stopped. How utterly unsurprising to know that he can’t take a tiny speck of what he spends half his life giving out.
I took that as a threat of legal action although arguably the action he said would be taken could have been of some other sort. Of course, there were no “baseless lies” in that blog post and all I could do when I got that email was laugh out loud and then ignore it. The blog post he doesn’t like is still up and it’s not going anywhere.
Now to reveal the second part of his tweet which, as I said was posted in the summer of this year 2021 – ten months after I’d reported him to the police.
You see at the bottom he says that I am on record as being a racist and he has receipts. That baseless lie brings me to the main business of this video.
Earlier this year – as a sort of prequel to this video – I made a two-part video in which I recounted what happened in Hyde Park on 30 August 2020 when a group of feminists were aggressed at Speakers’ Corner by a much larger group of people who’d been on a Black Lives Matter march. I showed all the footage that I could get my hands on and I exposed how this same individual – the bully – who, again, hadn’t even been present and several others as well had again come up with a made-up version of events and I showed the defamatory tweets they made about some of us.
I cannot begin to describe how angry and distressed I was to see these comments. That is not something that I find easy to admit to because he will totally get off on knowing that I was upset because that is why he does it and that’s the kind of person he is. He’s a bully.
It was way back in January 2020 – after I posted the video showing everything that happened when I was assaulted at Speakers Corner and highlighting his responsibility for the false narrative that has been circulating ever since – that he started this new tack of calling me a racist on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I addressed it in the introduction to the abridged version of my Speakers’ Corner video, still in January 2020.
So there is no evidence that I’m a racist but how do you prove you’re not something? Attending a public protest saying, “No to Racism” perhaps? I’ve no doubt these nutters would find some way of reconciling that picture and any other evidence with what they want to believe.
In September 2020, three years after the assault on me, after he’d repeatedly accused me of dining out on the assault and in spite of the wealth of evidence that gives the lie to his fantasy version of it, he was still accusing me of having deliberately taunted the thugs who attacked me. And now – after this…let’s call it what it is…after this attack on us by gender-cultist BLM marchers – none of whom, by the way, were suggesting we were racists (they were calling us transphobes) and my tormentor was inventing a new narrative, again casting me as the villain in an incident which the evidence shows quite clearly was started by the BLM marchers. But what was unendurable for me was the repetition of the lie that I am a racist.
Here he is defaming Kellie-Jay and a bunch of her friends, saying we are a racist, white supremacist gang.
And here he is calling us Nazis.
A step too far. I know it’s been said by others many times but this fashion, this penchant nowadays for flinging out the word ‘Nazi’ at people you disagree with is an insult to…it disrespects everyone who suffered under the Third Reich. That includes both my parents and their families – especially my mother who was from a country that was occupied by the Nazis and, as someone who was born in the post-war period, I grew up knowing from the earliest age of the suffering that had been endured by so many of my parents’ generation…and their parents That is something this bully and his acolytes are not capable of understanding because if they did, they surely wouldn’t behave as they do. Their conscience wouldn’t allow it.
OK, here is a tweet from someone who thinks I have a criminal conviction for some kind of racist attack or harassment in the past. Where could he have got that idea from? Because it wasn’t from anything I have said or done in my entire life. I have no convictions; I’ve never even been arrested, let alone charged with anything.
The bully responds without confirming or denying but with yet more hateful lies:
There was no doubt in mind that this was to be the test case and the police would fail it miserably, as indeed they did.
I’ll tell you what happened in Part 4.
To receive email notifications of future blogs at Peakers Corner, please subscribe. See top of right-hand column.
I am permanently banned from Twitter so please also follow and share announcements by the @trans_peak Twitter account (run by my husband).
The second transcript is below. See the video here.
In the first part of this series I explained the background to my decision to report someone to the police. Welcome to part 2.
There were several candidates I could have chosen to report – but one individual made it very easy for me, not only by using his real name and living in England but by sinking lower than had any of the others by tweeting about me falsehoods that were more despicable than any I had seen previously. Blatant lies that were the total opposite of everything that I have stood for my entire life. I genuinely felt that if anyone was hateful and deranged enough to believe them – and I know some people do – they could well be hateful and deranged enough to physically attack me, my home or hurt any of my loved ones.
I also want to say that I have never lied about anyone or anything in connection with the assault on me in 2017. I have repeatedly been called a liar but there is not one scrap of evidence that I have ever done so and a mountain of evidence that everything I have said is the truth.
At the beginning of 2020, I made a video about the assault on me at Speakers Corner and the trans activist response which showed how the same individual had circulated a false narrative about what happened to me when I was attacked by those three men. The video is still right here on YouTube. It is entitled ‘Assault on Maria MacLachlan at Speakers’ Corner and how trans activists responded’.
If there is one thing that has destroyed my faith in humanity more than anything else it is that ordinary people will quite shamelessly lie – in spite of the evidence that contradicts their lies – if they think it will help their agenda. There are people who think nothing of trying to destroy the reputation, the career, the health of someone who has done nothing to them but whom they see as a political enemy. Of course, I am not just talking about myself here. I know of countless people who have been targeted with the irrational hatred of those I make no apology for calling a cult.
I am not claiming that what I’ve endured is as bad as what women I mentioned in Part 1 have endured at the hands of the police – and I should add Kellie-Jay Keen to that list. I’m certainly not claiming that the bullying of me is anywhere close to what’s been happening to certain journalists including Julie Bindel or academics like Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix.
I know that there are many more victims of the dreadful abuse and defamation by these cultists, who aren’t as well known, who don’t have the love and emotional support that some of us have and who live in fear of their livelihoods and more.
In my case, their continued defamation of me and their attempts to shut me up has had largely the opposite effect to that which they apparently intended. It has galvanised me into being far more active than I had ever expected to be and it has won me far more support than if they had just behaved decently and honestly in the first place.
It is for everyone being victimised by the cultists and being failed by the police, by politicians, by employers, by their trade unions, that I will continue to call out the cultists and expose the failings as I come across them.
Having seen that particular individual sink so low, I did a search of his tweets and I was staggered. If we include his own retweets of his own lies, there were well over 300 tweets about me in the three years since he first started lying about me. This felt like a serious and terrifying obsession. I don’t recall tweeting about this bloke. I may have done. I had challenged him directly on Twitter in the early months after the assault and I mentioned him in several blog posts I wrote because of the lies he told and the vile things he said about me and others and I posted the screenshots of his tweets. Why shouldn’t I? But what I never did was lie about him. I didn’t need to – the proof of the abuse was in his tweets.
So I collected screenshots of a large number of his tweets – not all by any means – and I have made those that I collected available on my website. As I said in Part 1, my anger and distress doesn’t come from being insulted, it comes from being lied about in a way intended to stir up hatred against me. Having said that, I do want to draw attention to some of his insults for what they reveal about him, as well as what they tell us about Twitter’s double standards.
First, a general one in which he gives his opinion of women and our male allies with whom he disagrees.
I’m now going to show you one directed at Caroline Farrow.
I mentioned this in a blog post I wrote once saying it was the most disgusting tweet I’d ever seen, which it was at that time. The author eventually responded on Twitter to me by saying it goes double for me. How sweet.
Note that the man with hundreds of tweets about me accuses me of being obsessed with him. This reminds me of a rather entertaining self-own of his I came across, in which he shows a screenshot he grabbed from… well, it’s obviously YouTube, probably from below one of my videos, in which I am addressing one of my oldest real-life friends as “babe”.
He says I never talk like this? How the hell would he know what I talk like unless he tries to read or listen to every word I say anywhere? I use the word ‘babe’ a lot in real life but only to people I am very close to – I don’t use it sarcastically against my political enemies of the other sex as he does, which is presumably why he’s called creepy. Imagine the ego to think I might have picked it up from him!
Now that we’ve set the tone, let’s look at a few of the insults that he’s come up with just for me. In the first part, I mentioned that I was quoted in the Sun saying people should be free to insult each other.
He’s called me Rose West a few times. For those who don’t know, she’s an incarcerated torturer and serial killer of young women, including her own daughter. Most of her crimes were committed in partnership with her husband, Fred West, who committed suicide in prison. Here we go, I’m a “Poundland Rose West”.
And here he brings my husband into it.
Here I am called a “blatantly obvious weirdo crank with serious, serious issues”.
No irony there at all.
Here I am a swivel-eyed loon.
Here he suggests I’m someone who has violent fantasies and wants to enact them. I get quite a lot of this sort of thing from the cult and it stems from the fact that when three members of their cult – physically attacked me for no good reason. I fought back.
I fought back in three ways. At the time, I tried to stop the one who’d smashed my camera from running away by holding onto him; secondly, I immediately reported the attack to the police and went to court; thirdly, I mocked the ridiculous false narrative started by this individual and since then I’ve devoted much of my time exposing the hate of the gender nuts and challenging their ideology through my website and more recently through this YouTube channel. They cannot stand the fact that they haven’t managed to shut me up. They cannot stand women who are not only actual women but stronger and braver and smarter than they are. That is what this is all about.
I’ll just show one more:
Here he calls me dopey, hypocritical, hate-addled, batshit, twatspangled, fucknuggetted, gobshite, Rose West wannabe.
Now I am many things but I am not a wannabe torturer or serial killer and I am not hypocritical. I’ll say it again – I am not bothered by insults especially from those who are so obviously morally and cerebrally inferior.
So what am I bothered about – apart from the rank stupidity of people like this guy? Fabrication. Sheer invention for the purpose of justifying violence against me or anyone else and for the purpose of stirring up hate and possibly instigating more violence.
The first lie that I know of that this person tweeted about me was at 6.51 am on 14 September 2017. In other words, early in the morning on the day after I was assaulted. He says I’d been on a Facebook page “all day long” on the day before the assault “giving out vile abuse.”
Now, if he’d only said this once, I wouldn’t be bothering with it but he repeated it nine times that first day and he even claimed to have evidence to back up what he said about me but, of course, he didn’t produce it because it wasn’t true. He was so desperate to get people believing his narrative.
Let me tell you about that Facebook conversation.
A group called Action for Trans Health London was trying to get a meeting I planned to go to shut down. The meeting was about proposed changes to the law in favour of gender self-ID and it was to be my first meeting on anything to do with transgender issues. I didn’t understand why some people wanted to stop it happening rather than coming to the meeting and arguing.
I mean, if they had decent arguments they would have won over hearts and minds, right? I knew very little about gender ideology back then and what the conflicts were about. But I was really disgusted at these people trying to get a meeting closed down. Of course, we’re all used to it now. Trying to bully, intimidate and shut people up, rather than trying to defeat us with arguments, has become the norm.
So I went to this group’s Facebook page and I saw a post by Clare Solomon that seemed eminently sensible to me. I gave it a ‘like’ and read the first few responses, which were typically nasty and ridiculous and calling feminists ‘transphobes’ and accusing them of making trans people unsafe. I felt pretty angry that they were trying to get the meeting shut down and I joined in the conversation.
While that conversation – or silly squabble would be a better way of putting it – was going on, they got news that the venue had cancelled the meeting I wanted to go to and they started posting celebratory posts, which made me angrier. I called them bullies. I called one of them a handmaid – which was wrong because he turned out to be a trans-identifying man. I think most of the idiots on that thread were men posing as women. Then suddenly this guy appears and calls me a raging terf imbecile, prejudiced, muddy thinking, whining like a spoilt baby, a moron. This was his first comment on the thread and it was by far the most abusive comment that was said by anyone on that thread.
This was one of my very first online exchanges with gender nutters and I was quite shocked by how hateful and nasty he was. So I took screenshots of the entire conversation, never dreaming at the time that I would need to use them to disprove his defamation of me.
So, he tweeted that same lie – that I’d been giving out vile abuse all day – nine times on the first day after I was assaulted and several more times over the next ten days or so before I finally wrote a blog post giving my account of what had happened to me and linking to my screenshots of the entire conversation he’d been lying about. My intervention amounted to fewer than ten tweets in under two hours. The screenshots can still be viewed here.
Anyway, that wasn’t the worst thing, obviously. The worst thing was that – also on the morning after I was assaulted – this person had taken from one or more available videos showing the assault on me some 25 carefully selected stills and had deliberately omitted the most important one, which was Tara Wolf running out and attacking me, while I was standing two or three metres away from the group of people harassing us and I was filming them. This guy had added an entirely fabricated narrative of his own which placed me as the instigator. I’m not going to going into that succession of tweets in any detail now because I did that in my videos about the assault – both the long video and the abridged version.
And, again, not satisfied with posting this work of fiction just the once, he actually retweeted the whole thing six times.
He retweeted it even after the court case at which the only one of my three assailants who was caught and charged was convicted of assaulting me. And just in case you think he confined himself to the pack of lies in that twitter thread – not at all! Still on the first day after the assault he was making ridiculous and unsupportable claims like this:
The guy must have spent hours posting lies that were deliberately intended to hurt me, hurt my reputation…and for what? What exactly was his purpose? Was it to make me so angry that I would stop living my normal life and start fighting back by getting involved in campaigning, building a website, creating a youtube channel, etc?
I don’t think so.
It was a victim-blaming narrative to justify the attack on me and that is why the cultists picked it up and ran with it.
A couple more things before I finish this part.
I was mystified by this. Private photos? I had to go and look at every mention I’d made of him on my site because I honestly couldn’t remember posting any photos of his gob on my site. But, actually, I had. It is one graphic with two images, I’m obscuring them because apparently these photos of himself – which can only have been put online once upon a time by himself – upset him. I can’t imagine why, seeing as in at least one which is clearly pre-transition, he just looks like an ordinary bloke and not like a pantomime dame.
I can’t remember where I found this creation but the reason I grabbed it and uploaded it onto my site is because of what it said at the bottom.
Yes, he did that and yet he thinks I’m guilty of some kind of heinous criminal act because I stuck a couple of pics that were already in the public domain, put on the web himself:
And I put them on some obscure page of my website. Furthermore, he was incomprehensibly proud of the fact that his partner – the mother of his children – is apparently a wannabe violent thug, too.
Having said all that, in my judgment, none of the tweets that I have shown so far – even though they were far worse than anything complained about from Kate Scottow or Marion Millar or Ceri Black – merited a complaint to the police. What did merit the complaint I made? I will show you in Part 3. Bye for now.
To receive email notifications of future blogs at Peakers Corner, please subscribe. See top of right-hand column.
I am permanently banned from Twitter so please also follow and share announcements by the @trans_peak Twitter account (run by my husband).
This is the transcripts of the first of a 4-part series of videos I have made and uploaded to YouTube. The first one can be viewed here.
Hi everyone, I am Maria MacLachlan and this is the video that I have been procrastinating over for quite a long time. Actually, it’s the first in a series of videos because there is quite a bit I want to say. In them, I will explain why and what happened when I reported a trans-identifying bully to the police. In the first one, I’ll talk about the background to my decision.
I hope to go public with these videos all on the same day and be done with them. It’s not a subject I relish talking about. Again I am posting the transcripts of these videos on my blog. The reason I do this with certain videos is that I know that, in spite of my lovely mellifluous speaking voice and my glowing youthful and very feminine looks, some people will never watch a video of mine and some people won’t watch a video at all – unless it’s anime or something. But some of those people will at least skim through a written piece and I want to get what I say in these videos shared as widely as possible because of what I have to say about the police.
This account is one I’ve always known I was going to give. By ‘always’ I mean since last December and I’ve kept finding reasons not to do it.
When a Scottish feminist called Marion Millar was arrested and charged in Scotland earlier this year that gave me another reason to wait and see what happened in her case so I could include something about it in this video.
Marion’s case initially involved a handful of tweets she posted that offended a couple of people I’d never heard of. I’m told one is a male actor and another one – a woman – is an SNP councillor. Those tweets of Marion’s didn’t even break Twitter rules and it’s really not hard to break Twitter rules if you take a pro-feminist position.
You don’t have to do very much to get banned from Twitter if you are a feminist and Marion’s tweets didn’t even meet that very low bar.
When I was in Glasgow with Marion I saw all but one of the tweets that were complained about to the police. Marion showed them to me on her phone – all but the one she’d deleted were still there on Twitter and they were nothing! By Twitter standards, they were less than nothing. One of them showed a picture of suffragette ribbons! The one she’d deleted – if I remember rightly – referred to a notorious litigious transgender activist so I can’t blame her for deleting it.
It beggars belief that the police took this complaint seriously and how they treated Marion. That’s the way to keep public confidence in you! Ask a respectable professional woman if she wanted to hang someone with ribbons because he’s gay. Seriously, that is what Marion was asked at her police interview. For crying out loud!
And it is bizarre that the Procurator Fiscal didn’t throw the damn case out at first glance. This was a trivial and vexatious case that should never have been brought and the real victim here, who has been unjustly punished just by the process even before going to trial, is Marion.
And of course, it never went to trial, the case has been discontinued, which is what I expected from the outset. But why the hell did it take so long?
The nasty man who complained about Marion’s tweets has since done the same to a woman in Northern Ireland and again it looks like he’s picked the wrong woman to mess with. Her name is Ceri Black. If you haven’t already done so, do read the transcript of a speech she made just after police had contacted her, which is posted on Graham Linehan’s substack.
Ceri’s response to being invited by the police to attend a voluntary interview under caution at the police station was:
The police did tell Ceri’s solicitor that, in fact, they weren’t going to arrest but they were sending the complaint straight to the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland. I am recording this on 5th December. A few days ago, she tweeted that the police had knocked on her door in the morning to read her her rights and tell her they are going to report the matter to the Prosecution Service, which Ceri thought they had already done anyway. As she says, the process is the punishment. It seems that all police officers in Northern Ireland are armed. Later in the day of Ceri’s tweet, her wife tweeted that she was still upset that her 9-year-old had been the one to open the door and find a police officer on her doorstep. Why the hell did they send an officer without warning to their doorstep? Disgraceful!
According to Ceri, she tweets about safeguarding children, lesbian love, the erosion of boundaries due to queer theory, women deserving their own sports, etc. When she faced a wall of death threats, rape threats, threats of sectarian violence, violent pornographic photographs and videos, homophobic abuse and calls to go back to where she came from – Ceri is English – on her Twitter account, she reported them to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and they took no action.
Now to the episode that is most relevant to my case and was dealt with by the English police. Kate Scottow made headlines after she was visited at her home by police on 1 December 2018 and arrested in front of her two children. Her crime, according to the newspapers, was referring to a man as a man – calling him “he”. But because he claims to be a woman, this was described as “misgendering”.
I did not believe this story initially. I actually thought she must have done something quite serious because the police considered it necessary to send three officers to arrest her. They seized her phone and laptop and held her in a cell for seven hours before questioning her. When she eventually was interviewed by the police, she was asked about seven messages posted on social media. Seven! Six of them were tweets, which she admitted to posting – the seventh was on an internet forum, which she denied.
The six tweets were directed at a man who holds a Gender Recognition Certificate, the same notoriously litigious trans activist as Marion Millar had directed one tweet to.
And Kate was eventually charged under s.127 subsection 2 of the Communications Act, 2003, which legislates against causing annoyance and needless anxiety to someone by means of electronic communication.
The only tweet that could reasonably be called abusive called the complainant “a crook using the trans façade to ensure they aren’t caught. A pig in a wig”. Another one called him “a very sick individual” and Kate had also called him a racist more than once because he had tweeted to someone, “You know not so long ago people like you had no civil rights!”. The other thing he objected to, of course, was her not using his preferred pronoun. In court he said – or rather yelled – that it was “harassment” and “violated his dignity as a woman”.
So, after she was arrested, the complainant got an interim injunction prohibiting Kate from publicly posting anything else about him and more specifically “misgendering” him. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop her. By the time the case reached court the number of tweets involved had increased to a grand total of 16. If I recall correctly, the complainant said about nine of them didn’t even offend him but they were in breach of the injunction.
In February of last year, 2020, I attended her two-day trial at St Albans Magistrates’ Court and I returned a week later to hear the verdict. She was found guilty. I subsequently made a video sharing my thoughts. In a nutshell, I was disgusted but not particularly surprised at the verdict as I had long since come to the conclusion that, when it comes to conflicts between trans activists and women’s rights activists, the police and criminal justice system in England and Wales are not on our side.
I wasn’t sure back then about Scotland or Northern Ireland but I am now.
Months later, I discovered that I had been quoted in the Sun newspaper after the verdict saying:
Now, I have no recollection of speaking to any British journalists but that’s probably an age thing. In any event, I absolutely stand by that comment. Insults do not concern me – I reserve the right to insult anyone I think deserves it and I defend other people’s right to insult me, however much I might dislike it. I’m pretty much immune to it by now anyway. Imagine if everybody who insulted anyone on social media got prosecuted! Well, it just couldn’t happen – the resources aren’t there. So the police are very selective and, if I may say so, very biased in deciding which cases they will proceed with.
And yet – as I discovered later – the individual I reported to the police called me a hypocrite for what I said to that Sun journalist and I assume that this is because he is unable to distinguish between an insult and a lie – by which I mean telling deliberate falsehoods about someone knowing either that it definitely isn’t true or that there is no evidence to support it. That, as an allegation, it wouldn’t stand up in court.
Lies, especially when they are told with the intention of stirring up hatred against someone – which is what this person did otherwise why do it? – they do concern me.
Having been persistently lied about by countless nutters since 13 September 2017, which is the day I was assaulted by three young men in Hyde Park, I had already received quite detailed – and free – legal advice and I knew I had a case for a civil action against a number of individuals. However, in order to take out a libel suit, you have to be prepared to risk a hell of a lot of money and while, if you win, you would supposedly recover your costs and then some, what if the people you sue don’t have two pennies to rub together? What if they lose the roof over their heads? And what if they have children? I was never interested in getting money from these people – I just wanted the abuse to stop. Telling vicious nasty lies about people is abuse and those who lie about me are abusers.
The other thing you have to be prepared for if you do decide to sue is a hell of a lot of stress and ultimately it felt that, if I successfully sued any of them, it could be a bit of a hollow victory in that it could be twisted and used against me because that is the kind of thing they do. JK Rowling – with every justification – gets a couple of lawyers’ letters sent out to people or newspapers making false and disgusting allegations about her and she’s painted as the villain because she has the funds to do that.
This despicable individual is an infamous Twitter bully who has posted countless nasty, vicious tweets mostly about women – including a few about me – over several years now. He has just faced a Medical Practitioners’ tribunal, which found his fitness to practise impaired and suspended him for a month, which I admit is more than I expected. In fact, having seen the stuff that he and his mate posted about one of his victims – a woman called Caroline Farrow – I don’t think he should ever work as a doctor again. That’s my opinion. I’m deliberately being careful what I say about people because I do expect this series of videos to be targeted by the bullies.
Now, as I understand it, Caroline did seek help from the police several times and they failed her.
Anyway, this doctor previously had to apologise for comparing JK Rowling to a very famous man who notoriously took advantage of his celebrity status and reputation for charity work to sexually abuse countless children of both sexes and many young women, some of whom were extremely vulnerable.
This other despicable individual – Morgane Oger, a Canadian trans activist who campaigned for the defunding of Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter – describes JKR as a bully for threatening to sue for this most disgusting smear imaginable. These are the kind of people we are dealing with in this war.
I have no doubt that all I’d need to do to silence the bullies who target me is get lawyers to write letters – they’re not going to try to defend the indefensible in court. But lawyers’ letters don’t come cheap and I don’t see why I or anyone else should have to fork out to stop people lying about me. But I never say never.
And if a feminist like Kate Scottow was going to be treated like a dangerous criminal for such a small number of tweets – “unkind” and “annoying” as they may have been – why wouldn’t an ongoing hate campaign against a feminist at least be given due consideration? As I told Venice Allan on camera at a protest outside the court after the Scottow verdict had been delivered, I would certainly be talking to the police about some of the harassment I had been putting up with over the previous two and a half years. It would be an opportunity to expose the police for what was clearly a failure to provide a consistent service for those of us who are victims of bullying and harassment.
OK, that’s the end of part 1. In part 2 (posted here) I will explain why I selected that particular individual to report and I’ll show some of the abuse he metes out. Bye for now.
Here is the transcript for the last video in this series. The video can be viewed here. Please share them if you can.
Welcome to the fourth and final part of my account of what happened when I reported a bully to the police. In the first three parts, I explained everything that went into my decision to go down that route. In this part, I show the police reaction, which stands in stark contrast to how they react when men report feminists to the police.
On 14 September 2020, I filed a complaint online about the man who had been defaming and abusing me online for three years to Merseyside police, without any expectation that I would hear back from them. I imagined that a couple of months down the line, I would be chasing them up, only to be dismissed. That’s how much confidence I had in the police.
In fact, it didn’t happen quite like that.
I was pleasantly surprised when, a mere 13 days later, I received an email from a woman detective constable telling me she had been “allocated” my report of harassment and asking me when would be convenient for me to give a statement by telephone because of the 200-mile distance.
I’m going to change the names of the police officers I had dealings with for my own protection because I don’t trust the police. So I will call her ‘Jane’ and Jane seemed very sympathetic. She clearly didn’t have a clue about the conflict over gender ideology; she didn’t know the meaning of the term ‘TERF’ – apparently she hadn’t undergone the indoctrination provided by the Mermaids charity, which I have blogged about in a blog post entitled: The Thought Police are coming.
We fixed a time for her to take a statement from me the following day and, as arranged, she phoned me and started taking it. This was not the first time I’d given a statement to the police but it was the first time I’d done it over the phone and it was terrible. The line was crackly and obviously I was required to go into minute detail about what this man had been doing but I also needed to explain a lot of the basics about the conflict between us and them.
After a few minutes, realising how hopeless it was, she asked me what I wanted to happen, to which my answer was, “I just want him to stop and I want him to delete all his tweets lying about me”. So we agreed that she would contact him to tell him what I wanted and that if he didn’t comply, I was prepared to testify against him in court, which I absolutely was and I still am.
I also said that – as a gesture of goodwill – I would remove his name from my blog apart from the post about the assault at Speakers’ Corner and the page on which I have the screenshots of the Facebook conversation I referred to in Part 2 of this series of videos. I did that – I removed his name from all the other blog posts and I replaced it with words like “a certain trans activist”.
Eventually, on 3 November 2020, I received an email from Jane saying:
Can I ask that over the next few days you check to see if this has happened and that you are happy with this course of action. If you could email me in the next week to let me know and I can close the case. Also as you have mentioned could I ask that you make sure that you have removed any mention of him on any of your social media please.
Hope fully when all this has done this will be the end of all your concerns with regards to him.
How wrong she was!
Of course, I went straight to Twitter to check and this is what I saw:
I’ve still no idea what it is, none of us have….. but she claims to have finally deleted blog posts about me.
Which she hasn’t.
So we’ve agreed Maria can present her list of demands, and I’ll present mine.
Which also saves me the bother of contacting the police myself. So all in all, a productive and welcome intervention….
Hopefully Maria can now reflect on her behaviour, and she can delete some of the relentless abuse of me, instead of wasting police resources making malicious claims against me.
DARVO Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender – a manipulation strategy commonly used by psychological abusers.
This individual has never once posted evidence of me abusing him in any way because no such evidence exists. When I have referred to him at all, it is over something he has said or done and I have provided receipts – he has no receipts. By the way, although I had mentioned him in several blog posts exposing his hateful comments I have never written a post specifically about him and only him and I did not give any undertaking to delete any entire blog posts – just to remove his name from all but the one of them, which I did.
So of course I immediately emailed Jane and told her what he had tweeted. She responded:
I have just tried to contact him but no answer!! I have sent a text asking for contact asap to discuss this.
Will let you know how I get on.
I didn’t hear from Jane again. A couple of days later I looked at the bully’s Twitter and saw that he had posted several tweets about me. Here are a few of them:
It wasn’t, of course, fair comment or in good faith – it was a total invention, which deliberately omitted the crucial part of my first assailant – Tara Wolf – running at me and swiping my camera. He retweeted it numerous times, that narrative – all 25 stills of it – knowing it wasn’t true. Here is another:
Another falsehood. My website is not hosted in Iceland and there is nothing on it that is illegal or against mainstream ISP terms and conditions. This is a ridiculous allegation and anyone who believes it is a moron.
Translation: “Contrary to what I had told the officer I would do, I immediately went onto Twitter and totally misrepresented our conversation. I got caught out so of course I had to delete my tweets.”
So we have the entitled white male bully who thinks he can colonise womanhood, analogising feminist resistance with racism and turning those he is oppressing into oppressors. I did not, of course, make the press arguing with trans people. I made the press because I was assaulted by three of them and nor did I demand that the police intimidate a trans person on my behalf. I complained about a relentless hate campaign being waged against me by this man and I did so in the knowledge that much milder harassment of a trans-identifying man by a feminist had resulted in her conviction.
Of course, when you have no moral compass and have been lying without care for the hurt and harm those lies may cause to another person’s life, then you won’t see that you’ve done anything wrong. But as he has made abundantly clear, he doesn’t even think that we are human so the effects of his actions won’t impinge on his conscience at all. That is trans activism.
So now he is accusing me of abusing his community – not to mention the supposedly relentless abuse of him. Receipts? There are none. Receipts of his abuse of me and my community. Too many to count.
Days went past and I chased Jane up. I got no response. I was admitted to hospital for an emergency appendectomy, which was OK but didn’t help with how I was feeling. I also had other things going on caused by this cult that was having a profound and negative impact on me. Only after my husband, who was extremely concerned about me, emailed Jane did I finally receive a response on 18 November:
Oh, so we’ve dropped the friendly “Hi Maria”. Now it’s like the headmistress talking down to the child. She tells me that her supervisor has reviewed the complaint and that:
Have you got that everyone? Someone can repeatedly tweet whatever vicious falsehoods they like about you, they can tweet hundreds of times over several years but that’s not harassment. Tell that to the Hertfordshire police who locked Kate Scottow up, the Scottish police, the Northern Irish police because they seem to see things differently.
Given that she already had all his details and had contacted him and had spoken with him, this response was extraordinary. It was like she’d been brainwashed and had forgotten everything I’d said or written to her, like she’d forgotten she’d already contacted the offender in this case and that he’d agreed to delete his tweets and then lied about their conversation on social media. It was just incredible.
I responded to that effect and, as for the total nonsense about their “not being harassment due to being on a public social media platform”, I copied and pasted text from the relevant legislation s.127 of the Communications Act 2003, which refers to the ‘improper use of public electronic communications network’ and I pointed out that social media platforms are not exempt from its provisions. And to say that publicly posting hundreds of defamatory comments deliberately inciting hatred of me and causing needless anxiety and depression over a period over three years “cannot constitute harassment” is ridiculous and is disproven by the case earlier that year when Kate Scottow was convicted under the same legislation for doing a tiny fraction of what my tormentor had been doing to me. 16 tweets, only seven of which offended the complainant! She got convicted, which at that time meant she had to abandon her career hopes for posting a small number of mildly derogatory tweets none of which deliberately lied about her target, called him a ‘Nazi’, an anti-Semite, a lesbophobe or an obsessed stalker or anything remotely to what the bully had called me.
And, finally, I said that I was appalled that the advice of Merseyside Police should be that victims of abuse and defamation should just give in to bullies’ attempts to silence them, while the perpetrators are free to continue their abuse, especially at a time – meaning lockdown – when, for many of us, social media is a major source of social contact.
And I asked that her supervisor contact me directly.
Later that day, I heard from Jane’s supervisor, a detective sergeant who I will call ‘Bill’. Again, not his real name. On my website, I provide screenshots of
the whole of the correspondence I had with the two most important emails I received from Bill. All I’m going to do here is give a timeline and a summary of what was said in our exchange.
So on 18th November 2020 I received the first email from him, from which it was clear that he did not take the matter seriously, he had not properly read the full crime report that I had submitted in the first place and he gave the very strong impression that he was looking for an excuse to dismiss it. He did say that if I had any evidence to support my allegation of a crime, to forward it directly to him.
On 24th November 2020. I sent my response to Bill’s email to me in which I expressed my dismay that he had “misunderstood” my original crime report and pointing out that, as a result of my reporting and the DC Jane contacting him, the bully was now posting more crap about me. So, in fact, reporting to the police had left me in a worse position than before.
I also said that I was attaching two documents – one of which showed about 100 of the bully’s tweets about me. I asked him to let me know if he had any problem accessing it because it was large. (These tweets are now viewable in pdfs here and here).
And I reminded him of what I said about Kate Scottow. How can you have a situation where police in a different part of England will arrest a woman and for her to end up with a conviction for doing a couple of handfuls of tweets under the same legislation as Bill saying that for the much greater offence committed against me there was no case to answer?
On 1st December I emailed him again asking if he could at least acknowledge receipt of that email I had sent him a week earlier.
On 8th December I emailed him again saying it had now been fourteen days since I’d emailed him could he please at least acknowledge receipt.
I know the police are busy and I’m tempted to add a facetious comment about how much time all that celebrating diversity must take but I won’t. But simply acknowledging receipt takes next to no time and I just found it incredibly rude that he couldn’t even be arsed to do that.
The next day 9th December 2020 I finally received an email from Bill saying he acknowledged receipt and had been unable to view the documents!
I responded very quickly saying I had turned the documents into pdf files and I was sending two emails attaching one document to each. I asked him to let me know by return whether he had received the documents and could view them and that if he wasn’t prepared to assist and I was absolutely sure by this time that he wasn’t then could he provide a full explanation?
I got a reply very quickly saying he’d received the emails and that his rationale sent on 18th November 2020 still stands.
That rationale had been that we must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the annoyance was caused by sending “a message that he knows to be false”. Like this one for example:
Like 300 others.
I had provided an abundance of evidence that the bully was tweeting stuff about me he knew to be false. It was obvious that the detective sergeant had not read this evidence. In the time it took to get back to me, he would barely have had time to even skim it. I don’t believe that he even glanced at it. He had already made up his mind that he wasn’t going to spend time on the complaint of some woman being bullied by a trans-identifying man and I absolutely believe that had it been the other way round – if the complainant had been a trans person complaining of defamatory tweets by a feminist – it would have been a different story. Why wouldn’t I think that, given the other cases that I have talked about where exactly that has happened?
Now, I really didn’t know what I could do. I just could not see how it could be possible that Kate Scottow could be convicted for a much lesser offence than my bully, who doesn’t even get interviewed under caution. I was still in the process of considering my options when something wonderful happened. The very next day after getting my knock-back, Kate Scottow’s conviction was quashed on appeal. I hadn’t even known it was being heard at that time. My heart lifted – I was so happy both for Kate and for the fact that what I still perceive as an injustice against me was sort of less of an injustice without Kate’s case to compare it with.
I still believe that my bully’s repeated harassment of me is in breach of that particular piece of legislation and that Merseyside police – or at least that one particular detective sergeant – failed in his duty. It should have been up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there was a case to answer – not that one prejudiced and ignorant police officer.
The police are not on the side of those being bullied by gender fanatics. They don’t want to know about that yet they will treat women like Kate and Kellie-Jay and Marion Millar and Ceri Black like criminals for nothing.
As I’ve said before the British police are the trans cult’s goon squad.
Having said that, I would urge anyone being bullied in this way to report it to the police and when they dismiss it, publicise it. Complain about it. Expose their failure to do their duty, expose their bias, expose their contempt for women because otherwise, nothing will change.
The bullies will keep on abusing and defaming us with impunity. Never forget that the reason they do this is that they know they can get away with it, whereas what they can’t do is defeat us using reason and evidence and humanity. Mostly they don’t even try. My bully has never once engaged with any argument I’ve made on my youtube channel – all he ever does is lie and express hate for anyone brave enough to speak up against gender ideology and against bullies like him and I’ve no doubt the approval he gets from other cultists gives him a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
That is all.
For the first time in the short history of my Youtube channel, I will be putting a transcript of this video on my blog. If you’re reading and would prefer to watch me saying this stuff (recommended), click here for the video. Even if you prefer reading to watching, the more subscribers on Youtube I get, the more Youtube promotes my videos so please consider subscribing to help me reach new people.
It is the week of the annual Labour Party conference and Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has started it in memorable fashion, responding to Andrew Marr in a TV interview today:
Let us remind ourselves how three years ago in Liverpool the woman definition billboard designed and paid for by Kellie-Jay and put up near that year’s Labour conference venue got taken down after complaints that the truth might cause some men to get all hurty feels.
And let’s remember how two years ago gender activists – including Labour Party members – behaved outside a feminist meeting that was held in Brighton during the week that the Labour Party was holding its conference there. It was an unofficial fringe meeting held by Women’s Place UK, a campaigning group that involves many Labour Party members, trade unionists, women from the same socialist feminist tradition that I come from myself.
Dozens of protesters stood outside the venue, taunting, abusing, screaming and throwing water at people going in, many of whom were old enough to be their mothers and grandmothers and had spent their adult lives fighting for women’s rights. The aim of these pseudo-fascist thugs was to try to intimidate those attending and they succeeded to some extent because some women were too scared to go in. Those that did – over 100 of them – had to endure shouting and banging on the windows of the venue for over three hours. The police stood around outside just allowing it to happen.
Watch Julie Bindel reporting.
Every major political party has sold women out on the issue of women’s rights compared to men’s rights to adjudicate on what it means to be a woman but the biggest betrayal comes from the Labour Party, supposedly the natural home of the genuinely progressive left. There is nothing progressive about giving men the right to claim to be women. It is an anti-woman policy.
Now, two years after that, a woman MP, Rosie Duffield, who does have the courage and integrity to stand with women, who dares to recognise the importance to women’s safety and dignity of single-sex spaces, who dares to speak up against the indignity of being reduced to our body parts and who had the temerity to say that only a woman has a cervix, won’t dare to attend her own party conference because of the sheer hatred and the threats from the same kind of misogynist scum that intimidated and abused feminists and allies at that meeting two years ago. She doesn’t feel comfortable because of the woman-hating thugs of the regressive left, some of whom evidently find the Labour Party to be their natural home these days.
Now, there’s something I’ve been wanting to say about my local Labour MP for some time. Now seems a good time to do it.
A couple of months after those awful scenes in Brighton and in the run-up to the General Election held in December 2019, my husband, Alan, contacted our MP, Barry Gardiner, about a couple of issues of concern, including how women’s rights and protections would be affected by proposed so-called “reform” of the Gender Recognition Act in favour of gender self-id.
He finally received a reply at the end of July the following year – eight whole months later! The reply is viewable here. Here is one sentence:
A hostile environment?
He has no clue what it has been like having to endure the gender extremists’ lies and the mockery and the hatred and the gaslighting and the harassment and the bullying; the attempts to silence and intimidate people who disagree and get them fired from their jobs – including even trans people – regardless of the fact that they have themselves and their families to support. People who consider themselves to be on the political left do this.
Some of the worst violence? Indeed they do – as do men and women who are not part of the trans community. Murdering a woman because she’s a woman isn’t even called a “hate crime” – not even if she was murdered by a partner or ex-partner who hated her, which accounts for 62% of all cases of femicide in the UK. But that is just run of the mill. Not a “hate crime”.
That passage was typically vague unevidenced politician-speak. It came as no surprise to us to discover that Alan was not the only constituent to receive the exact same response to concerns raised on the same topic. In light of what had been happening to women expressing those same concerns both online and at real-life meetings around the country and most recently at Brighton and involving his own party’s members, this was an unbelievably crass response.
His whole email had no redeeming features but the inclusion of one paragraph served to make me angrier than had any email or letter I’ve ever received before. This is the paragraph:
Yes. He really did that. He used the analogy of the race classification boards in South Africa for those of us who refuse to go along with a lie and accept as women – just because they want us to – those members of the sex class that has historically oppressed women. In other words, men.
I too am old enough to remember the human suffering caused by apartheid in South Africa. In fact, learning about apartheid as a schoolgirl during the heavily-protested Springboks rugby tour of Britain in 1969-70 profoundly impacted the development of my political sympathies and steered me resolutely and extremely leftwards.
Learning that there was a country whose people had been dispossessed, exploited and abused by European colonists over the centuries and which had – only a couple of decades earlier – instituted a system of racial segregation based on white supremacy, blew my mind. Seeing footage of the conditions Africans were forced to live under in their own country by their white colonising self-appointed rulers, broke my heart.
I vividly remember my feelings of helplessness at the time of the Soweto uprising in 1976 when so many Africans were killed. I wanted so much to do something. I did the only thing I could think of: I joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement, I gave it what little financial support I could afford and I worked as an admin volunteer on some campaigns for both the AAM and the then outlawed African National Congress.
Some words from a one-time president of the ANC, Albert Luthuli:
Now, bearing in mind what Barry Gardiner said, “Every identity has its gatekeepers: those who determine who does and who does not belong,” can anyone tell me what the brutal oppression of the majority of the population of South Africa by the minority rulers of European heritage, has to do with “identity”. I mean, those people were not oppressed because of how they identified. They didn’t have any choice. They were oppressed because of what they were – Africans ranked at the bottom of the four-tier racial classification system in their native country.
Right, let’s talk about “gender identity”.
Barry Gardiner doesn’t define it but this definition from the Office for National Statistics is concise and I doubt Barry Gardiner can do any better:
In other words, it’s a feeling. A feeling that your personality, your tastes, your natural inclinations either fit the stereotypes that are culturally imposed on the basis of whether you are male or female or they don’t. Or they do some of the time, but not others. Or you feel that some of the expectations of one sex fit you and some of those of the other sex do. That probably goes for most of us actually, but we don’t all feel the need to deny our sex and to pin some fashionable but ultimately meaningless label on ourselves.
Gender identity is regressive nonsense!
We are now at a stage when you don’t even have to try to look like the opposite sex, you don’t have to have any medical interventions at all to be accepted by the wokeists as what you say you are – and that is the inevitable result of widespread institutional and policy capture by gender identity ideology. If you feel like a woman, by God, you are a woman! Womanhood is reduced to a feeling – that is what the Labour Party wants enshrined in law.
What was the point of all those struggles, all those campaigns to liberate women if we were just going to end up with the absolute madness of legislating that people should be accepted as the other sex – and pretending that it’s about gender identity? The absolute madness of asserting it is wrong to say only women can have a cervix? The madness of comparing resistance to a misogynistic ideology that is erasing women as a sex class to policing people’s ethnicity and wanting to establish white supremacy?
It’s not about gender identity, it is about men’s sexual rights, it’s about mental health and it’s about young women wanting to escape the horrors of womanhood.
Like the victims of apartheid, women are not oppressed because of our identity, we are oppressed because of what we are – in our case female.
That is all.
Last night police were called to the Doctors bar in Edinburgh. Five officers turned up and ejected a group of about a dozen women who’d been quietly sitting eating, drinking and enjoying each other’s company.
Apparently one of the women had been wearing a T-shirt proclaiming that “women won’t wheesht”, which naturally offended the woman-hating member of the bar staff, who is a self-confessed porn-addicted autogynephile.
You may be getting a sense of déjà vu here. It isn’t the first time people have been offended by T-shirts bearing anodyne slogans worn by women who have been victimised as a result. First, there was Rebecca Wershbale then the National Theatre debacle. In the latter, the group who were discriminated against initiated legal action. One member of the group eventually posted that the action was discontinued after “constructive conversations” with the theatre.
But that was in England.
Scotland is a place where a woman can be arrested and charged for tweets that are so innocuous they don’t even break Twitter’s draconian anti-women rules under which countless women – including me and some of our male allies – have been permanently banned, while the accounts of hateful, abusive bullies are allowed to remain. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting the woman in question – Marion Millar – and many others who had gathered in Glasgow to support her on the day her plea hearing was supposed to take place, having already been rescheduled from a month earlier. A few days before the rescheduled date, the hearing was postponed again but those of us who decided to go anyway had a wonderful day. Continue reading
In deciding on the title for this post, I was spoilt for choice of goofy quotes delivered by Peter Tatchell on Talk Radio a couple of nights ago, during his discussion with Kellie-Jay Keen, aka Posie Parker. In the end, I plumped for the above extraordinary and revealing admission from Tatchell because it highlights the question his appearance on the show must surely have raised in many minds:
Why on earth was this bloke invited to speak about “trans rights”?
When Kellie-Jay observed that they “couldn’t find a member of the trans community to speak this evening” and rather sweetly expressed her gratitude to Peter for agreeing to do so, she earned a swift rebuke from the show’s host, Kevin O’Sullivan:
All the more surprising then that Tatchell was invited instead of a trans person who could at least speak for him or herself, if not for all trans people.
This morning I woke to the news that the organisation laughingly known as the American Humanist Association (AHA) has withdrawn the ‘Humanist of the Year Award’ given to Richard Dawkins in…wait for it…1996!
Here’s the backstory: Ten days ago, Richard Dawkins tweeted this.
I wasn’t irked by this comment as some were – including many on our side of the biggest cultural conflict of our time. We expect high-profile scientists to stand up for science against an ideology based on post-modernist pseudoscientific claptrap but we expect them to do so sooner rather than later. We have been disgusted by those – such as Alice Roberts, current President of Humanists UK – who’ve sold out and we’ve been dismayed by the silence of others, including Dawkins. Some responded irately on the belatedness of his intervention while others saw the framing of his comment as cowardly fence-sitting.
If the man – assuming it is a man – who murdered Sarah Everard identifies as a woman, will they mobilise in support of him…sorry, ‘her’ when ‘she’ stands trial?
Will they defame and abuse the real feminists, the ones who understand that the oppression of women by men is rooted in biological reality, the ones who support all female victims of male violence, regardless of what the perpetrators claim to be?
Will they accuse us of targeting, harassing and doxing the poor trans ‘woman’ whose behaviour, in spite of his having that mystical essence that entitles him to claim womanhood as his own, bears an uncanny resemblance to that of a vicious woman-hating thug?
I owe a debt of gratitude to Prof Alice Sullivan for raising awareness that one of the people invited to give evidence to the Women and Equalities Commons Select Committee, as part of their Inquiry into proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act, is one Ruth Pearce who, the day after I was assaulted by three male trans activists, tweeted this.
I was aware of this tweet at the time and included it in my original account of the assault.
(Note that the intended recipient was Ada Cable who played no small part in the hate campaign against me.)
When I saw Alice’s tweet I decided to contact the Committee directly to complain about Pearce’s inclusion. Only then did I check Pearce’s Twitter timeline for any more tweets and I was horrified to discover this thread. This tweet in particular stands out.
Paul Ilett describes himself as a “best-selling author”. If you find that interesting, I’ll leave you to check out the novel he once wrote.
A couple of nights ago, he took it upon himself to conduct what he later described as “an interesting experiment”. This involved posting an absurd and unsupportable statement, which he undoubtedly knew would anger and offend countless women and some men.
His challenge to anyone thus offended, however, was not that they should explain why they felt as they did nor that they should attempt to engage him in a civil exchange of views in the hope of developing greater mutual understanding. Instead, he asked anyone who disagreed to ‘simply block’ him.
Many of those who are active on social media will be familiar with seeing the assertion that ‘transwomen are women’ followed by a wearisome demonstration on the part of the poster of their total inability to offer anything remotely resembling a coherent substantiation.
Almost invariably, anyone who invites an explanation of how someone born male can be a woman will be blocked, usually well before they’ve subjected the poster to anything that could be described as abuse.
The dictionary provides us with a concise definition of anti-Semitism as ‘hostility and prejudice against Jews’. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – an inter-governmental organisation set up some years ago to focus on issues related to the Jewish holocaust – provides a comprehensive list of examples. The mention of George Soros’ name and objecting to any of his political and philanthropic activities doesn’t feature in that list of examples.
Catholic journalist and commentator, Caroline Farrow – about whom I have written one post already, on the occasion of her being sued by the notorious transgender litigant, Stephanie Hayden – is the latest to be defamed in this manner.
Her accuser is none other than the repugnant and obsessed James Billingham, about whom I have also blogged previously. In this instance, Billingham uses his sock-puppet, @TheOnlySprout, to tweet a screenshot of a Facebook post by Caroline promoting a CitizenGo petition, which was launched after an article written by Soros himself in the New York Times: Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook.
Yesterday I posted a new video in my series about awful arguments by trans activists. This one is entitled, ‘It’s all your fault’ and it’s about the extraordinary phenomenon of trans cultists blaming feminists and others who oppose transgender ideology for the fact that sometimes gender non-conforming women get mistaken for men and the mental gymnastics involved in attributing this mundane fact of life to ‘transphobia’. Everything I say in the video is my opinion which, in the absence of any serious challenge, I stand by.
Wipe the tear, baby dear, from your eye-ee.
Though it’s hard to part I know
We’re quite happy to see you go…
As we learned from the Guardian yesterday, a small group of authors have thrown their toys out of the pram and flounced off the Blair Partnership’s list of clients because they couldn’t bully the literary agency into kowtowing to their inflated sense of entitlement by making some pointless, cringeworthy gestures.
Obviously, the Guardian doesn’t put it quite like that, going instead for more subtle, low-key humour and saying the four had “resigned after accusing the company of declining to issue a public statement of support for transgender rights”.
Wow! They actually accused them of that? How very, um, serious.
I mean, really? They resigned not because of anything the agency did but because of something they wouldn’t do, something there was no need to do. Further down the Guardian piece we learn that not only did the authors want a public statement but they wanted the company to “conduct staff training with the group All About Trans”, a group that promotes itself as “Positively changing how the media understands and portrays transgender people”.
But why? Had the Blair Partnership said or done anything, either publicly or internally, that could be construed as anti-trans? It seems not.
There I was, extending the hand of friendship and not only does he refuse it but he blocks me on FB and then goes and boasts about it on Twitter. I’m broken-hearted, obviously – not only at his rejection of me but at his claim that I’ve “only ever shown hostility and hate” towards him.
That’s just not fair! Why, every time I see him in real life – which, in case you’re wondering, has always been in court watching this notoriously prolific litigant pursue his favourite pastime – I smile warmly and gaze at him fondly. Unfortunately – and probably due to an understandable lack of self-esteem on his part – he invariably misinterprets my well-intentioned and cordial behaviour as hostility and calls me horrid things!
I owe a debt of gratitude to 44-year-old retired Mixed Martial Arts fighter, Fallon Fox. Fox was the first athlete in MMA history to be openly transgender – though he only admitted it after he’d already taken part in two professional fights in the women’s division. During the course of his career, he knocked two women out: one of them – Tamikka Brents – sustained an orbital bone fracture and a head wound requiring seven staples. Six years later, Fox is still boasting about it.
Why am I grateful to him? Well, because he publicly represents all that is rotten about transgender ideology. Like all male athletes competing in women’s sporting events, he’s a cheat. And, like so many trans-identifying men, he is a violent misogynist thug.
Yet we are supposed to accept him as a woman, ‘respect his pronouns’, etc, etc. Who can blame us for feeling uncomfortable and even afraid of being in a changing room or being followed into the Ladies by men like Fox? And it’s not as if he’s the only one.
These two tweets were directed at me during a Twitter spat I had with James Billingham a couple of months ago. Yes, he really is one of those men who presume to adjudicate on what feminism is. I can’t in all seriousness believe he thinks I care what he would “love” to see me do. Rather, I think these tweets were intentionally condescending to me in order to virtue-signal to his followers, who will probably applaud the insufferable arrogance of a man telling a woman old enough to be his mother how she should be doing feminism.
Some astonishing news emerged last week about the newspaper referred to in some feminist circles as the “Trans Times” but which is better known as the Guardian. It turns out that, far from being a paper that panders to transgender ideology and ignores feminist concerns about it, the Guardian is actually “an incredibly transphobic organisation” that is harming trans people.
At least, that’s what a former employee of the paper claimed to Buzzfeed LGBT editor, Patrick Strudwick.
I’ve said before that I don’t think Strudwick is the best journalist in the world but his recent piece entitled, The Guardian Newspaper Has Lost Two Trans Employees Over Its Reporting On Trans Issues, helpfully brings us another example of what I described in a previous post as the “sheer dishonesty as well as the cultish thinking of trans activists”.
The ex-employee – who is transgender and referred to as “Victoria” – claims that the Guardian is both transphobic in its reporting and guilty of “allowing a bitter schism to develop between pro- and anti-trans journalists”.
This line, which manages to be both unusually honest and typically disdainful at the same time, occurs two minutes into a video by a popular transgender youtuber called Natalie Wynn, better known as ContraPoints. The video is entitled Gender Critical and, at the time of writing, it has had close to a million and a half views and attracted 90k ‘likes’.
Like most videos produced by trans activists, I wouldn’t be giving it the time of day were it not for the fact that I’ve seen it promoted left, right and centre on social media by people who obviously think it’s good and, in a perverse way, it is. Clearly, a lot of time, work, skill and creativity went into its production. Most importantly, the arguments are presented in such a way as to sound convincing even to some who would probably claim to be scientific sceptics but who, for some reason, leave their scepticism to one side when it comes to pseudo-scientific and regressive transgender ideology.
The fact that I see the video being promoted by people who should know better, means that I have to take a closer look at the content to see what I can learn and what I can pass on to people who, like me, find Wynn’s persona and style rather irritating but who, unlike me, aren’t willing to spend time studying the transcript, which I’ve copied here.
Having done that, I’ve decided that there is too much to respond to for one blog so I’ll focus on one thing for now:
One of the things I was somewhat hurt by in the weeks after I was assaulted at Speakers Corner was the lack of contact from Humanists UK. I was Facebook friends with the CEO and several other high profile humanists and the night after I was assaulted I posted an emotive rant, which was shared widely. A lot of people – including some humanists I consider to be dear friends – expressed sympathy and support but there wasn’t a peep from the leadership of the organisation I had been a member of for a quarter of a century. I’d also been a humanist funeral celebrant for eight years and, early this century, I had spent a couple of years there in full-time employment as a development officer.
I envisage any trans activists reading the above to be nodding approvingly at the lack of interest and compassion from Humanists UK. To trans activists I am a hate figure. I am the guilty party who instigated a violent attack on a poor innocent 25-year-old, 6-foot-plus “trans girl”. I am a liar, a hater, a bigot, a transphobe extraordinaire, a giant terrifying beast, a white supremacist, a Nazi.
This is the post in which I express my anger against those young women who’ve betrayed the goal of women’s liberation by promoting male entitlement and female erasure. And, no, contrary to what certain trans activists such as Stephen Whittle say, the term ‘handmaidens’ isn’t misogynist. Misogyny refers to contempt and disregard for women because they are women, i.e. adult human female. It doesn’t include the disdain we feel for women who are selling us down the river, the women who prioritise the feelings of men over the psychological well-being and the physical safety of women. The true meaning of ‘handmaiden’ is female servant and that, in effect, is what these women are. Continue reading
Anyone who gets embroiled in squabbles with trans activists will be familiar with certain canards that crop up time and again. Like a set of plastic skittles, it doesn’t take much to topple them but, wearisomely, there is always someone willing to put them back up to be knocked down yet again.
In a recent article on the BuzzFeed News site, LGBT Editor Patrick Strudwick could have scoured trans Twitter and come up with the exact same input from common or garden Twitter numbskulls as that provided by the five sociologists he calls – and this is the only touch of humour in the article – “leading feminist thinkers”: Akwugo Emejulu, Sally Hines, Tracey Jensen, Alison Phipps and Vanita Sundaram. If you’ve only been a feminist for a few decades, you’ll be forgiven for never having heard of them.
I suspect that no academic worthy of the name would bother responding to the article. Why would they when the Professors’ “arguments” – for want of a better word – could be refuted by a teenager without a single GCSE? On the other hand, the article is a good example of the sheer dishonesty as well as the cultish thinking of the trans activists. As such, I think it’s worth including in that very tiny and select group of articles that I refer to on this site because they are so unbelievably bad.
I came across the article because I’d started writing a different blog, for which I needed to check whether I was up-to-date on the definition of a certain word as it is used by anyone who promotes transgender ideology. It was a search I’d done many times before and had always come up short. This time was no different. It is a word for which the trans lobby have no robust and useful definition. The word is ‘woman’. Continue reading
A couple of days ago, a “trans rights activist” (TRA) published an article on Medium* entitled, I was one of the transactivists on the Channel 4 documentary, I regret what I did — this is why.
The documentary in question – which was, in my opinion, excellent and well worth watching – was Trans Kids: It’s Time To Talk. It aired last week and can currently be viewed on Vimeo.
Quite a few people on the gender critical side of what is laughingly called this “debate” have applauded the author, Esther Betts, for being courageous. It is a sign of the times we live in that admitting you behaved abominably after the evidence that you did has already been broadcast on national TV, is called “courageous”. However, others – including me – aren’t quite so charitable.