Tag: gender critical

Gender Critical Men are f***ing terrifying.

By Daviemoo

As always, when I write about trans equality I need to start off with a solemn declaration that violence against women and girls is a very real, genuine problem, a cancer in society; that women are subjected to horrors beyond the stunted imagining of the men behind that violence is inarguable. I also understand that as a man talking about this debate it’s easy to write me and my words off as more misogynist twaddle that doesn’t bear scrutiny. I can’t change anyone’s mind on that- but I can continue to talk about an issue that gives me grave concern, which is that the gender critical movement came out of a nascent period last year when certain gender critics questioned why far right activists were infiltrating their circles, and the movement as a whole decided it was a necessary cost to join hands with fascists to keep their movement building.
If you don’t take violence against women and girls seriously, shame on you is the weakest sentiment you deserve- but if you don’t take violence, both state level and personal, against trans people as seriously, you must live in a different world than I, and if you condone holding hands with far right activists to bolster your movement, you’re part of that group.

Women deserve to be heard about the violence they endure at the hands of sick men. Today the newspapers are awash with claims that Nick Cohen, long time well known alleged pervert is- shock horror- an alleged woman grabbing pervert. Nick’s defence is that he “doesn’t have the faintest idea” about the accusations, but he did ask:
1- why she didn’t report it sooner
2- he said the misogynistic conversation was “joking among friends”
3- he said the accusations come from critics including “pro Russia advocates” and “trans activists”
4- he said “I assume it was stuff I was doing when drunk”, relying on alcoholism as the fulcrum of his alleged sexual abuses

This case is important, as all cases of this nature are. It’s also common, one case in tens of thousands in the UK alone, likely more- where women are maligned for staying silent, judged for coming forward, slated for speaking up, insulted for not being able to take a joke and blamed for their own bodies. If you want to know why the gender critical movement attracts women it’s because there’s hardly scant evidence as to why women should be afraid of men. That’s something anyone with even a sparking scintilla of intellect can grasp- a movement based around rage towards men, the obvious oppressors of women, is attractive- and if that’s where the attributes of gender critical thinking stopped I’d be supportive. But gender criticals somehow take the existence of a tiny proportion of the population, trans people, and make them the malign target of their hatred towards men.
You don’t have to be a card carrying member of the tofu eating lefty brigade to see that there’s a gulf between trans women and cis men – As a cis man, do I typify the behaviours of a trans woman to you? I don’t do any of the things trans women do in regards to my gender, so it’s ridiculous, laughable even to put parity between someone like me and a trans woman. Even if you don’t believe transgender women are women, someone with any grounding in reality could see that trans women don’t behave like non trans men.

Trans folk are often maligned on the internet, accused of everything from fetishes to the newly in vogue “groomer” charge levelled at LGBT+ people by right wing demagogues. Unfortunately, too many in the LGBT+ are falsely sure that slating their peers in the community with these accusations will save them- make them the exception to the rule with regular pundits from tiktok right wingers like Kelly Cardigan to ostensibly academic folk like Debbie Hayton all too happy to agree with any anti trans sentiment, provided they can assert themselves as the only exception- But Hayton and those like her are a confusing array of figures who regularly talk about how trans women are indeed problems and shouldn’t use women’s spaces, all the while using women’s spaces if accounts are to be believed. It’s the hypocrisy of trans women who declare support for the gender critical movement who believe they, because they back the movement, should be the exception to the rule.

Additionally, one finds it hard to accept the assertion that is often levelled at trans people being erotically obsessed with your own genitals is wrong, bad and disgusting when the same group post things like this:

To ascribe your feelings to everyone is deluded, and yet this holistic monstering of trans people is commonplace- one newspaper article comes out justifying the fear of trans people- a trans rapist in Scotland- and it’s touted as proof, all that’s needed to justify the phobia, the aversion, the hatred, the violence both political and physical… whereas I just look and go ‘if one example is enough you may want to google “female teacher has sex with student” and keep a strong gin handy’.
I’m not trying to make light of these very serious issues, only point out that holistically ascribing bad behaviour or malevolence to an entire group of people based on tangential aspects of their behaviour or existence is not helpful.

And that is where we start to get to the crux of my fear. The gender critical movement is absolutely not empowering women and bolstering their protections- it’s causing wedge issue “debate” which is distracting from the continual weakening of women’s rights and protections, both away from the “trans debate” and partly- because of it. And even the front runners are guilty of an exclusionary attitude too, not just to trans women but fellow cis women too. The excerpt from Kathleen Stock’s recent musings where she declares that gender nonconforming women who are kicked out of womens’ spaces are a necessary casualty, not for a moment seeming to consider that they, as women, also deserve that protection and yet face denial from it, not by the cruel trans activists but by a fellow cisgender woman.

Let’s say we create an island and tomorrow relocate every trans person to a trans only society. Do you genuinely think that would deal with the rampant misogyny in today’s world? Would men stop hitting their wives, would police stop joking about rape victims, calling them ugly or insinuating that they like being domestically abused: see the met police texting “give her a tap, she loves it”. Would the hot-button row about abortion rights magically evanesce into nothing? Would period poverty be solved?
What issue are gender critics fighting for, besides the othering and monstering of trans women? Again, you don’t have to accept that trans women are women if you don’t want to. Nobody can compel that thought in you, but to deny the commonality in experience between trans people who experience an enormous threat of sexual assault, violence in public spaces and whose rights are being debated- not as opposed to women’s rights but in conjunction with them- see the overturning of Roe V Wade at the same time as over 300 anti trans laws emerge: surely it’s a fools errand to deny that there are shared experiences here which are of vital import, and are more useful in drawing people together than driving them apart?

But the most terrifying aspect of gender critical thinking is that, and I mean this with my entire being, it drives women into the arms of their abusers.

Gender critical men are terrifying. Honestly? I’m scared of men anyway- I understand women’s fears towards men, having been put through hell by other men in my life. If identifying out of being a man was something you could choose to do I would, because rejecting the label of a group I’m in that’s routinely oppressed me with violence, sometimes sexual, always degrading, my entire life would be appealing: but I can’t, because I am a man- and so I want to out the men who tarnish us. I want them to face up to, and be deprogrammed from their evils, to make the world actually function and to melt down the misogyny that forms the bulwarks of society. The only way to do that is to listen and understand- and I do. I understand women’s fear of men- I do not understand gender critical women’s embracing of gender critical men.

Gender critical men regularly assert that the key tenets of gender criticality when it comes to men are correct- that men are all thoughtless, violent thugs led by their penises into committing vile acts of transgression against bodily autonomy, every man a sneaky sleeper agent just waiting to pounce once your walls are down.
It is, frankly, bollocks.
We live in a society that coddles men, telling them it’s ok to get angry and shout, smash up your TV, fight in the street, thoughtlessly lay hands on other people as a “joke”. We all imbibe this as we grow, and never, not once, do our forefathers even attempt to highlight it never mind decry it as a horror. It is our job to pick this apart and we must encourage this in younger boys and men.
But it’s also our job to talk about the arrant nonsense in ascribing male violence to some magical rage gene that all men have that is just simmering away, waiting to explode. There’s absolute potential for a biological link towards being male and an increased risk of violence- but as beings who overcame our urge to chase wildebeest with sticks and live in caves, I think we can also overcome some childish urge to act with violence at every turn- to do so, society needs to push for that change, and until it does it won’t happen. Does society push men to eschew violence over thought? No. From the knee boys are told it’s ok to pull girls’ hair if you like them, the old boys will be boys trope, as young men we’re never taught how to respect others bodily autonomy and why we should, mostly because rarely does ours become challenged- and when it does become challenged, when young men prank each other in weird ways, it’s put down to childish humour rather than aggressively dealt with. As men grow we’re enabled at every turn to behave like we’re told we are wired to- to be aggressive, thoughtless, we’re bombarded with imagery of manly men or shown videos of guys on social media acting like utter fools and being celebrated, and nowadays you can’t turn left without another typically masculine looking stranger brandishing a microphone talking about how women these days don’t know how to cook as if they don’t sleep under a pile of their own laundry because they don’t know how to change bedding.


Gender critical men scare me because they embrace the nonsense- they DO think men are violent, they DO think we’re wired for it, they state blithely that men are always thinking about how to get what they want sexually. Gender critical men confess to the crimes we’re all accused of, accepting that yes, they are that way and levelling the accusation at people like me that we’re the same basal creature as they. I am not in any way like the picture gender critical people paint of the typical man, and I am not the exception- gender critical men who openly acknowledge these accusations and agree with them? They are. And yet, rather than looking at gender critical men as the dangerous openly confessed predators they admit to being, gender critical women link arms with them, pointing at them as evidence of their convictions- it’s a very “leopards eating face” moment. Rather than turning away from those who admit to being dangerous to you, you embrace them because they affirm your fears.

But of course, many reading this will assume I’m just a lefty prone to flights of fancy, no real proof.

This is an avowed gender critical man, who, in response to an Australian doctor saying his mother is trans-positive, is threatening to… well, you can read it.
When confronted on the fine point that misogyny is probably more likely to be threatening to chin an old lady than to be friendly to trans people, he claimed it was an “experiment” to “out trans activists as enjoying violence against old ladies”- his point somewhat punctuated with failure as every single pro trans person who interacted did so with rage and disgust. The most terrifying part of this is- it’s happening. It’s less than a week since Pink News reported that an 83 year old woman with dementia was assaulted by a man then thrown in a bin because he suspected she was trans- she wasn’t, not the point.

But this is the world in which we live now, where men think threats of violence against women are OK if it “owns the trans”. Where acts of actual violence are committed against women and that’s seen as collateral damage, acceptable in the battle against trans inclusion.
Because these men, these gender critical men have absolutely no interest in looking at their behaviour. They’re fine with their violence towards women- and the fact that women are turning a blind eye to it in favour of seething rage at trans people is probably worthy of celebration to them, because whilst there is a united hatred of transgender people existing, they go unscrutinised.

I will never convince gender critical women that trans people are worthy of the respect they so often reference in regards to their belief, nor frankly do I care to- it’s not for men like me to convince women not to fear someone, and as a man I understand contextually that bearded me wandering into a conversation to “um, akshually” someone who has fears about their safety is probably not helpful. That’s not my aim. But if I can make anti trans women realise that they allow their own fears to walk blithely among them, I’d hope that would at least see a shifting of the lens of blame onto the people who deserve it- non trans men who embrace this movement so holistically. I see gender critical women cosying up to men who proudly threaten violence as the same kin as women married to preachers talking about what a woman’s place is, smiling blithely that surely they’re the exception though, they’re safe because they are behind the gun- not in front of it.

There’s no point talking about the big examples- Donald ‘just convicted of sexual assault grab them by the pussy’ Trump, Matt ‘I’m literally a theocratic fascist, girls should be getting married at 14 and have babies at 16’ Walsh, Rishi ‘standing up for women but refusing to make misogyny a hate crime or entertain menopause leave’ Sunak: gender critics know, and they’ll probably never meet those men. But what about the men who proudly make their way to your marches, the ones like this:

That is a white nationalist, on your side, at your marches, or as Adrian Comerford has shown in response to Joanne Rowling on twitter, when Posie Parker interviews an avowed Neo nazi and literal confessed wife beater.
And what’s Rowling, who posted a nearly 5000 word diatribe accusing trans people of attracting Neo Nazis to these rallies, done with this info? Ignored it. Ignored the fact that Parker, who says she is not a feminist and that she will “destroy any woman who stands in her way” has open links to the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti womens’ choice group. She has called her “a genius” though.

Some gender critics questioned why so many far right fools kept showing up at their rallies- apparently the simple explanation of “your beliefs mirror theirs” was lost on them. I for example, attended a rally last year- a drag queen was reading a book to some children at Leeds Library. On one side, a huge collection of LGBT+ people and allies- on the other side- the Patriotic Alternative, described as a “neo nazi, far right fascist organisation” on their own wikipedia.

A gender critic wrote an article the next day condemning… Both sides. Oh it was terrible that the nazis were there, yes, nobody likes a nazi. But how dare LGBT+ people get angry at fascists holding up signs saying that we’re perverts and paedophiles, how dare we stand in opposition to people who virulently hate us? I note the article didn’t mention that the other side, the PA, so desperate to protect children- decided to set off the fire alarm, terrifying the kids. So many people, concerned with womens’ rights and protecting children, ignorant of the white nationalists amongst them or… embracing them.

Yes- embracing- what happened to the women who confronted the budding allyship with far right entities? Jane Clare Jones was critical of their attendance, many other women lodged concern that their movement, supposedly built around elevating women, was being swollen by those who think women should adhere to bible scripture. So what happened?
They were holistically told that it didn’t matter by other gender critical people- that the threat is so dire that allyship against trans people supersedes their allies thoughts. But can we be surprised? Let’s not forget when Allison Bailey called for allyship with racists and homophobes:

The madness in this entire thing is that if you strip back any and all nuance, it’s absolutely reasonable for women to have concerns about men and about having spaces which are dedicated to their safety and refuge. But rather than dealing with the societal reasons that we have to have refuges and protect women, anti trans campaigners think erasing trans people will solve these problems. They won’t- and the longer this goes on, the more precarity women’s bodily autonomy heads towards.

If you weaken trans people’s access to gender affirming care, you weaken a group’s access to bodily autonomy- and those same arguments can be recycled against you.
Why should trans women get access to HRT just because of their feelings, right? Well, by that same vein, why should anyone have access to abortion rights just because of their feelings?
You either holistically stand for bodily autonomy for all, or you author your own eventual downfall from your own pulpit, used by the very men who terrify me.

Nothing will change from my writing this piece, but I would hope that the less radicalised amongst gender critical women or those flirting with the movement because they understandably fear men, will hear my entreaties- gender critical demagogues do not care about your access to spaces, only for the denial of others’ access. They do not care about protecting your status as a woman, or halting violence, only to denigrate others’ status and enact violence against them, both personally and on a state level. And you can pull out your well used examples of trans people being terse with you on the internet but if you ally with radical nazis, proud anti feminists, anti abortion activists and more, I still see you are more of a problem for womens’ rights than people being mean on twitter because your views are quite literally eroding their public safety. I don’t want women to feel unsafe, I don’t want trans people to feel unsafe and I don’t want anyone to face death or rape threats- I sure do want the radical men amongst you who regularly threaten violence, both misogynistic, transphobic and just generally violent, to shut the fuck up- and you should too.

There is, and I know it doesn’t seem like it, a way through all of this, and it’s for both sides to ally against the actual problem. And the irony is, I come from that group. I am a non trans man, telling you that I walk in the spaces of cis men, I listen to them, I hear their conversations, I’ve listened to their justifications of their mad misogynist thinking. Men like that are the imminent threat, and will continue to be whilst you flirt with this distraction, and whilst you do they will continue to capitalise on it. How you handle that is your call. I have no right to tell anyone how to handle it- but I do know that continuing to work with the very men who threaten violence against everyone just because everyone happens to include the people you don’t like, does not a successful movement nor a compelling argument make.

Our lives are not ideologies: your violent hatred is.

By Daviemoo

The UK faces multiple crises: people are calling radio stations explaining that they cannot afford food nor the energy to heat it. Coronavirus has hospitalised more people today than in January 2021. Our government had multiple illegal gatherings and our leader lied bold faced to the gathered parliament about it. And yet the press seethes with questions about women and penises. In America, the “don’t say gay” bill has passed, a ludicrous legislation that helps nobody but immiserates some, and recently a right wing pundit suggested that doctors who provide gender affirming healthcare should be killed. These are dark times indeed to be LGBT+

Nothing stokes my rancour so quickly as to see who I am described as an ideology. There is no such thing as the “gay lifestyle”, nor “trans trend”: we have existed since the human race began in our varied forms and every culture. Sometimes we were accepted, sometimes we were not but the fact of our existence has never changed.

An ideology is a set of beliefs or ideals brought together by a collective: capitalism is an ideology. Communism is an ideology. Religion is arguably an ideology.

The lives of your fellow rainbow humans are not an ideology. Our long and tiring discourse over acceptance is no attempt to recruit unwitting heterosexual or cisgender people to our ranks. We exist: we are, at our core, a collective who banded together because we faced discrimination historically and still do now.

Many people defend the seclusion of our community from society at large without once realising that the sexualisation, the insinuation of perversion always comes from without, not within: the “don’t say gay” bill had an amendment removed which would have explicitly forbidden discussion of sex or sexual matters: this amendment was voted down. Which means that HETEROSEXUAL acts can be discussed with children. In my eyes this is deeply disturbing. No child should be exposed to discussions of sex until ready: and it is here that the majority of the world itself still has learning to do.

Photo by SHVETS production on Pexels.com

Sexuality and gender identity are not sex. They are not sexual. They are objective terms. If you can tell a child you have a wife, you can tell them you have a husband. If you can tell a child you think a woman is pretty you, you can tell them you think a man is handsome. Gender identity is deeply personal, to the point that my own gender identity as a cis man is different of that of another cis man: every single person has their own individual construction of their gender or lack thereof, and it is theirs to own and claim.

Terms like autogynephile were coined to insinuate that trans people are trans for sexual reasons and not simply that they were born into trans bodies and must reconcile that however they see fit.

We talk about spaces and inclusion, and there is a particular lack of nuance in the gender critical discussion around spaces that is endlessly frustrating: you are not “keeping” spaces single sex: spaces have been trans inclusive for well over 30 years, so to now MAKE a space single sex this necessitates trans exclusion, and exclusion is wrong.

Today I had a lengthy discussion with a gender critical account on twitter- they claimed to be a woman but I do not know as their account was anonymous, and I tried to reconcile gender critical ideology even against itself and came up lacking.

According to this account they “have trans friends” they’re fine with but are not fine with “males in their spaces” and “can tell when someone is male even if they don’t say it”.

Sometimes I admit I’ve found myself leaping to trans people’s defence so quickly, I haven’t weighed my words appropriately so I decided to do so this time. Let’s take this argument at face value despite the facile nature. What if we did ban all trans people from the spaces they currently use? How many murdered, beaten, assaulted transgender bodies would it take before gender critical people understood that trans people are at threat as well. And in fact, would they? Though many deny it there is a core knot of gender critical thinkers who would like nothing more than to simply see transgender eradication: and for those less hardcore thinkers in the gender critical circles if you do not wish to confront your feelings towards trans people, you may wish to confront those within your circles who condone a trans mass eradication.

Endlessly talking in circles around sexual assault and genitals and fetishes online is a dark, depressing and tiring struggle and lately I’ve found myself debating simply tuning it out and focusing on political activism- and yet time after time I find myself appalled at the language and falsehoods spread by anti trans activists.

How anyone who claims to be feminist can hold such damaging, narrow and regressive views is beyond me. Having an erection is not a sign of sexual enjoyment: as a man who has been sexually assaulted I can assure you of that. Almost 1 in 2 trans people have experienced sexual assault. There is a commonality here with cis women that should bring the communities together and in many cases does, and yet gender critical thinking uses this as a wedge.

But this goes beyond worst case scenarios. We come across a lot of very structured repeated language when we talk about trans people: “keep access to single sex spaces” (trans people have used those spaces for over 30 years so you’re ‘keeping’ nothing, any change to make spaces single sex would bar trans people, thereby removing their rights. “Protect dignity” what dignity is lost from a trans woman being present that is kept in the face of a non trans woman? The constant refrain of “safety” which is always paramount but also figmentary: safety isn’t guaranteed because of a sign on the door, or trans exclusive recommendations by the EHRC, or by legal declarations by an inept PM appealing to anger. A predatory person will do what a predatory person will do regardless of these things.

Trans exclusion is constantly being framed as womens’ safety- and yet we see very little to no actual founded evidence that trans inclusion is a threat to women in the first place. Uncomfortable for some, perhaps though it’s arguably more due to the bias of the woman than the existence of the trans person. Fear mongering around trans existence has no end result. Trans people regardless of hormones and affirming care or wigs or hair growth or blockers or dresses or packers or binders- will always be trans.

Again, I feel there needs to be a pointing out of the urgent need to reframe arguments to be seen as they are from the LGBT+ perspective.

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

When people argue that gay & lesbian people cannot be discussed, it is not we who are innately sexual: you are sexualising us, ignorantly placing our sexuality in this illusory realm of immoral behaviour. A gay man in a grey suit walking to work is not innately sexual- but he is gay. So why is referencing his sexuality so sexually explicit it cannot be mentioned?

If you want to protect children from sexual referencing may I suggest a law banning children from watching TV until they are 13. Adverts sexualising people are on TV all day- from perfume adverts with nude bodies as the containers to literal adverts for prophylactics: sexuality is everywhere- just, the sexuality you WANT for children. You don’t care if a little boy sees an advert of a half naked woman smelling another half naked woman’s neck, and you don’t mind asking a 5 year old if his female friend is his GIRLFRIEND at the school gates. I remember those expectations early on and they damaged not just me, wondering why I didn’t feel what everyone told me I should but they also hurt my family when I did come out, because this imaginary future they built for me all but vanished: was that my fault? Should I have lived a lie to make them happy?

The worst of the liars are those who claim to “accept us” but think we shouldn’t be referenced in front of children. If those children are straight all they will do is nod and move on. If they’re like us, the likelihood is they might just feel a little bit less alone: and treating us like we are watershed humans is a dehumanising experience.

Our community exists. It’s not an ideology: we have cultures we can, if we choose, loosely abide by or take elements from. Culture is pre-existing facets, behaviours or tropes which we can reference, imbibe or exhibit. That isn’t an ideology, and there wouldn’t even be a NEED for gay, lesbian, trans culture if we hadn’t been ostracised- by exculpatory ignoramus’ passed- from culture at large.
You notice also that those of us who are gender critical or even work against our own rights (see the regular gay republicans trotted out to say they AGREE with anti LGBT+ sentiment) are usually desperate to conform to what they see as hetero or cisnormative.

Anti trans, anti gay people and all of those in-between- at the very least stop referencing our very lives as "ideologies"- it demonstrates a poor grasp of the English language and an ignorance you're fighting hard to deny.
Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com

When it comes to ideologies and damaging ones at that, I would point the accusatory finger damningly in the direction of movements aimed at removing rights from transgender people as a whole because of the imagined crimes of a few, of demonising gay and lesbian people so badly that we cannot even be mentioned in front of children. Looking at ideologies that monetise their hate- a new conversion therapy camp opened recently in the UK- or who make merchandise specifically geared to intimidate us (adult human female T shirts, umbrellas, key chains), who show up to our days of remembrance to harass us or stand on the sidelines of our marches to tell us we’ll face eternal agony for who we are- how can it be denied that these movements are inappropriate.

Nobody would deny women with legitimate concerns from speaking but I’d hasten the gender critical women who truly believe in their cause to step forward and kick out the monsters from your group – after all, one bad trans person means they’re all bad, right? So what does one person, five people, ten anti trans activists belittling rape victims stories say about your movement.

Conversion therapy is torture

By Daviemoo

Conversion therapy is a clumsy and useless umbrella term for everything that falls under it- from simple talking therapies to violence, rape and castration, it is a term that does not encompass the horror which it can, does, and has entailed for those who have suffered at it’s hands and – thanks to the conservative government, will continue to. This violence against the trans community must be stopped at all costs.

Firstly a disclaimer to the “gender critical” LGB and perhaps even T people who enjoy consuming my content to harass me: they were going to ignore any suggestions of a ban: you’re on the side of people who would happily see you tortured because of your identity too. Be careful throwing around the term ‘handmaidens’ in future because we may not be able to hear you over the flapping of your collars.

Anti trans activists have fastened their hands around some key phrases I want to debunk: “we are just women with concerns”. Many (not all, perhaps) of the concerns that anti trans activists have revolve around the bodies of trans people, information they are not entitled to: they revolve around baseless claims of transgender people as predatory, or about the damage that transition does to trans people rather than the successes of those who have been helped immensely by it- focusing on the small percentile who desist in their transition rather than those who happily, safely transition and live in their gender or those who choose to re-transition down the line. For women with concerns there is also a surprising amount of virulently anti woman commentary- Steve Brookstein, an X factor competitor tried to have a tweet saying “can we all agree the main purpose of a woman is to procreate” go viral.

We also see a surprising paucity of coverage of other concerns for women: a cursory search of some of the more prominent anti trans figureheads like Maya Forstater, JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, Graham Linehan, Helen Staniland- reveal little to no discourse around topics like the horrific murder of Sarah Everard at the hands of a policeman, or Blessing Olusegun’s mysterious death, Sabina Nessa’s murder in a London park. They, of course, will argue that they see trans people as the biggest threat to women, that women are being erased in favour of a hopelessly small minority. Not to insult your intelligence dear reader, but can you spot the flaw in claiming that trans WOMEN are erasing the word women, or erasing women in general when trans women ARE women?

The other phrase often repeated is “standing up for women and girls” which I find a truly bizarre sentiment when those who spend hours online describing the rising transgender menace rarely speak out on topics like medical misogyny, period poverty, the disproportionate ageism women face, rape culture, body shaming- yet today the daily mail, with a photoshoot, lauds Forstater with a campaign she deems “the most significant women’s rights movement since the suffragettes”.

Suffragettes committed acts of what would today be called terrorism in desperation to be legitimised as human beings, as people with feelings, thoughts, brains, pride, and a fierce determination to be treated with respect: one could easily argue that Forstater’s virulent anti trans rhetoric could be pushing trans people so far to the wall that they are the oppressed facing a violent struggle for legitimacy. There is also the often spotted repetition of anti trans activists stating glibly that they can ALWAYS TELL someone is trans then blithely calling non trans allies trans: and it brings up a philosophical point: if you can “always tell” why is there also a huge push for trans women to disclose their medical history to you? Perhaps transphobes like being told things they apparently already knew: it does explain why the discourse is so hopelessly circular.

I doubt that there are many readers who believe that women have equality or equity in society: for those that disagree, you are wrong. Women have been maligned by men for all of history and are now, and unfortunately will continue to be because whether you believe in patriarchy or not, some form of male supremacy does exist, persist and propagates in society. One must ask though whether the anti trans movement is a cause that champions women’s equality or whether it opens the door for further oppression of women and girls.

Looking at LGBT+ oppression specifically which obviously encompasses that of women and girls- cis and trans- let us view the statements the UK government itself has made;

there is no robust evidence that conversion therapy can achieve its stated therapeutic aim of changing sexual orientation or gender identity

the types of practices tend to be similar for conversion therapy for sexual orientation and for gender identity – for example, talking therapies delivered by faith groups or mental health professionals

conversion therapies were associated with self-reported harms among research participants who had experienced conversion therapy for sexual orientation and for gender identity – for example, negative mental health effects like depression and feeling suicidal

there is indicative evidence from surveys that transgender respondents were as likely or more likely to be offered and receive conversion therapy than non-transgender lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) respondents

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-assessment-of-the-evidence-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/an-assessment-of-the-evidence-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity

If you create a ruling against transgender people being able to access certain healthcare, that ruling likely speaks on the individual’s bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is already (for ridiculous reasons) still questionable when it comes to women: from seeking abortion rights to whether or when they may access birth control and which method- to the simple right to say no to men in some cultures. Propagating an argument about bodily autonomy against trans people can- and will – be weaponised against these supposed moral crusaders for women’s rights because it’s plain to see that the anti trans panic is being championed by those who also work against womens’ rights: fundamentalist christians and hard right figures who believe that their entitlement to control women’s bodies is paramount to women’s own rights to choose.

Don’t believe it? Vladimir Putin has, before defending JK Rowling, called trans acceptance a “crime against humanity”. Donald Trump almost immediately enacted a ban on trans people serving in the army (it is more nuanced than written here for the sake of expedience but is no less true). Trump’s son lauded Rowling’s scorn filled tweets about “penised people”. Let us also highlight the irony of Putin’s rhetoric- he claimed JK Rowling was “cancelled” and that the west is trying to “cancel” Russia: bold words from a man so afraid of political rivals he has them murdered, imprisoned or injured. Rowling enjoys wealth, influence and adoration untainted by her increasingly outspoken verbiage against a community she’s previously expected praise from for the crumbs of a non sexual gay character who went full wizard Nazi because his boyfriend wanted him to.

This does, however, run deeper than left or right wing politics though the case is easily made that this is right wing propaganda, especially as we see that the only thing the tories are levelling up on is the rhetoric that labour are woke lefties as we prepare for the announcement of an early election. MPs who would normally take pragmatic views step back on making clear statements of support for those they normally would for fear they would upset bigots. I myself have written to my local MP in disgust of both sides of the political aisle, from Rosie Duffield’s endless platforming to speak out against trans people to Wes Streeting’s repeated and ignored transgressions against trans people, and conversely to the openly empty sentiments of permanently angry sentient felt tip Sophie Corcoran tweeting “don’t call me cis!”.

Prominent news outlets like (and I won’t say respectable because) talk radio, sky news, LBC, The BBC, all dedicating portions of their air time to questions like “can a woman have a penis” or “should we ask men if they’re pregnant in hospital”.

Insanity incarnate rules the media: because who cares? Shall we entertain discourse about how big a penis has to be before a man is a man? Does a micropenis mean a man is not a man? Genitals do not define you wholly.

Non parody-parody commentator Darren Grimes leapt to an impassioned defence of conversion therapy on twitter- it’s strange that Darren is so passionate in the availability of conversion therapy and yet hasn’t gone through it. Mayhaps he hasn’t run out of hope that he’ll find someone who can overlook his personality, lack of intelligence and disturbingly toothy face in favour of his good qualities, like his mam’s cooking. Mayhaps Darren hasn’t partaken in conversion therapy because:

These troubling ethical practices have raised alarm in major mental health professions, particularly because of the harm to patients. Further, all of these factors raise another ethical issue: Even if the questionable claims of conversion therapy’s effectiveness are valid, should the conversion of some “homosexuals” to heterosexuality condone the iatrogenic harm done to other patients who later come out as gay or lesbian?

In other words, should it not matter how many gay or lesbian people are hurt in the process of creating a few heterosexuals?

https://meridian.allenpress.com/jmr/article/102/2/7/80848/The-Growing-Regulation-of-Conversion-Therapy

The argument has always been that you are what you are born, that biology and nature matter. This of course discounts the gene therapy people can have to prevent inherited conditions, the plastic surgery people can have on lunch to hide signs of ageing, the cancer destroyed by gamma knives, the towering blocks of concrete and glass we erect. Denying trans healthcare is to deny the progression of a species scientifically out of fear and bigotry: we live in a world where these things are possible- what does preventing it do?

There is no weight to arguing that women are women because of breasts which some women do or don’t have for one reason or another, or uteri, or hormones or this or that: combined, these things may- MAY – make up a huge proportion of woman, but cis or trans some women do not fit all or even any of these stereotypes. It is ultimately YOU who decides what makes your womanhood and though that can have commonality with other women’s ideas it absolutely does not make you more correct than the woman whose breasts never developed, who never had a period, and so on and so on. Nobody though is denying the biological reality of sex: but gametes do not dictate our societal treatment of each other (I would hope).

There is SOME weight to arguing that women are women because from the moment they grow they are treated as women are, for better or worse. But pause and ask the commonalities between trans and cis women’s growing experience and see whether you believe those common threads are enough that the experience is not wholly unique.

Now let’s move to a question on the topic at hand: do you believe conversion therapy works?

The government’s own compiled dossier on conversion therapy states as above that “there is no evidence that conversion therapy can or does achieve the aims it seeks to”. Those wishing to keep it legal will ask why it would then harm to keep it legal. This dry sentence does not encompass the horror that lurks beneath.
Documentaries covering the repeated brutal rape, beating, ECT, medication, physical and mental abuse that can- and does- encompass conversion therapy are widely available online. So is research into what these tactics achieve: high morbidity rates and for those who are “successfully converted” a lifetime of PTSD and dissatisfaction that may or may not prevent you from continuing to be exactly what you always were.

There is an irony I enjoy pointing out in fundamentalist anti LGBT+ thinking: you are the ones who sexualise us. The mere mention of gay men has people covering their children’s ears and hissing about inappropriate topics! But my penchant for finding men attractive is quite a distinguished topic from anal sex, poppers, doucheing. Did you know that the recently signed “don’t say gay” bill in the US had two proposed amendments offered? One suggested that it would be appropriate to provide assistive materials to those who a teacher reasonably assumed to be LGBT+ so they would be able to access materials to help them understand their identities? It was voted down. Another amendment suggested that it be made completely blanket illegal to talk about sex (of any kind): it was voted down. So you can talk to a 6, 7 or 8 year old child about heterosexual sex but not homosexual sex: because, it seems, it’s wrong to talk about gay sex but not straight sex? But this act is oft touted as “not homophobic, it’s about stopping children hearing about inappropriate topics”. No. It’s erasure.

There’s a saying which has deep roots in mythology: “we are legion”. And this applies to the LGBT+. You can legislate against us. You can demonise us, imprison and kill us; no doubt people will continue to do so. But we are born, not (to my knowledge) made- evidence backed up by the solid failure of conversion therapy to do it’s stated aim- convert.

We will continue to persist no matter what you do to us. Those of us with decency stand together. And again a reminder that you can only push a community so far before they need to resort to desperate efforts to defend themselves.

Please consider writing to your MP today regarding this fallacious state of affairs: the government must stop the rhetoric of transgender people being less deserving of dignity and safety and must start looking after the citizens of the UK. Legal torture protects nobody.

Daviemoo is a 34 year old independent writer, radicalised into blogging about the political state of the world by Brexit and the election of serial failures like Trump and Johnson. Please check out the rest of the blog, check out Politically Enraged, the podcast available on all streaming platforms and share with your like minded friends! Also check him out on ko-fi where you can keep him caffeinated whilst he writes.

Ofcom have sold out the LGBTQIA

By Daviemoo

Either infiltrated by trans exclusive radical feminists or simply browbeaten into doing so, Ofcom today released a statement confirming that they would be leaving the stonewall diversity champions scheme. Despite the statement promising their continuing commitment to diversity, the suggestion and implication that Stonewall mean to do anything but protect and enshrine the inclusion of L G B T Q I and A rights at any affiliated institutions is blatant misinformation, parroted hot from the presses of the gender critical who so love to bombard social media from behind anonymous profiles. So- Et Tu, Ofcom? And what does this mean next?

Ofcom’s role is to regulate media in the UK, ensuring that fair, equal and proportionate representation is always at the forefront of media production. As you may be able to tell from the rise of right wing populist media in the UK, Ofcom are questionable at best at this role. Even the BBC’s horrendous oversight of the Peter Stefanovic “Debunking Boris Johnson’s Lies” video lends credence to the fact that Ofcom is doing a poor job of regulating anything these days. But nothing shows Ofcom’s increasing determination to declare obsolescence than leaving the diversity champions scheme that has beenn a corner of any business in the UK who wishes to declare it’s commitment to ensuring that members of the LGBTQIA have fair representation in the workplace- both as employees, and as protected members of a minority status.

Looking historically at stonewall’s achievements, along with their ongoing commitment to equality for everyone under the banner of LGBTQIA- from significantly lending a hand to shaping the equality act to pushing the repeal of the highly damaging Section 28, legislation which even significantly affected childhoods like my own at a time when queer issues were not spoken about in school, it’s clear that their commitment to equality is the bone of contention that has meant their exclusion from an ostensibly vital organisation.

From the outside, what does leaving a scheme like this look like?
The statement provided by Ofcom was meant to reassure that they are committed to diversity and feel they do not need Stonewall to do so- an odd statement, as Stonewall is the go to for any guidance around LGBTQIA representation in the UK. But the second part of their statement, implying that Stonewall’s efficacy has come under scrutiny is viewed through the clouded lens of bigotry so often employed by the gender critical crowd who seem determined to suffuse society with their hatred.

Stonewall’s determination to protect trans people from hatred has been inspiring and has provided many a cis ally – myself included- with hope that organisations will not fall to the mindless hate that gender critical groups are foisting on the public.

As more frighteningly prominent figures come out as radicalised in favour of stripping back trans rights and protections, the situation in the UK looks bleak for trans individuals and an indifferent government- wholesale- does not help. Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner has released an article decrying “trans ideology” in, predictably, the Daily Mail. Quotes in the article follow the usual line, for example: “Residents “scared of female-only spaces filling with women with male genitalia”, as though accepting the tiny proportion of trans women in the UK will suddenly lead to an explosion of trans women.

It’s not surprising to see- if you look at Ms Townsend’s twitter follows, you’ll find the Conservative party, GB news, and account after account who are anti trans- for example, as I scroll now:

Anyone even mildly familiar with the relentless tide of transphobia which continues to wash across the UK will know names like Maya Forstater, we are fair cop, Debbie Hayton, Marrion Millar… all old hat names when it comes to the anti trans extremists. Curious that a police commissioner is so fervently following this group. One cannot help but feel that her role may be compromised as to treating trans victims with any decency if she is so convinced of the radical (self professed, using their own phraseology) feminists so opposed to trans equality.

Equally, worrying news regarding anti-trans campaigners breaking the news of ofcom’s departure from the scheme has made rounds on social media and if the alleged information is true, lends credence to the theme that Ofcom withdrawing is not to “avoid bias”- it is to endorse it. If anti trans campaigners working at or with Ofcom knew ahead of the statement’s release it suggests that they are operating from within to ensure this move was undertaken- and how is this not the very bias Ofcom supposedly works to prevent?

As an ally, I worry about what the next decade will look like for trans rights. As this group gains steam, I’ve no doubt that lives will be threatened. Trans people already face disproportionately high suicidal ideations, domestic violence, hate crime, sexual assault and murder and in a society emboldened to foster ignorant beliefs like gender criticality, how will this change and shape how trans people can live?

I’d urge gender critical nonsense imbibers to sit back and actually listen to trans people and what they want and need. Blaming someone for the body they have is at best callous, at worst pointlessly cruel. And acting like anyone standing in support of trans people is a dangerous misogynist is a laughable idea, comparable to those who said supporters of the LGBT community in the 70’s and 80’s were paedophile enablers.

To cease relations with Stonewall is a tacit admission that your organisation will no longer foster the equality of trans people- and this is exactly how it reads to anyone involved. Ofcom may be the first of several organisations to make this misstep and I simply look forward to whatever necessary changes need to take place in society for the ignorant in this fractured society to reflect on their behaviour and simply become better.

The irony is that every facet of every community contains an element of dangerous and depraved individuals. But to constantly seek out and platform those unscrupulous amongst the trans community is incredibly disingenuous. Often the anti trans community will fervently seek out the less scrupulous amongst the trans or trans supportive community and display them like zoo animals.

Where though, is the platform for trans women who excel at being simple members of society? Where is the threat from a trans woman walking down the street to her job? Or the trans man who serves you at the bar, helps his neighbour with shopping and gives to charity? To tar all trans people with the brush of dangerous, deluded etc is to engage in the very thoughtless bigotry that Stonewall stands against- and society at large is actively beginning to foster holding the view that all trans people are anything other than people who are trans.

Ofcom’s role is to provide balance to UK media production, and to move away from a body that’s entire reason for existence is an aggressive commitment to equality should be a worrying sound for any and all who notice- so spread the word, complain to Ofcom about their foolish and misguided step away from progression. Or admit that you are ambivalent towards equality for an already horrifically treated group in society.

There is no “Trans Debate”- Just people trying to live versus a hate movement

By Daviemoo

Mandel, a vocal Rowling supporter who also thinks that friendship with Neo Nazis is a good idea

I feel like a traitor writing this piece. The last thing that’s needed is yet another cis person wading in to explain to other cis people the feelings of people who never ever get platformed and listened to. But it’s hard to stay silent when you see the damage of a ramped up hate movement being done to your friends, and so many other cis people determined to swing another axe at the base of trans rights. Over 50% of women in the UK accept that trans women are women; but the very vocal minority who do not are becoming ever more radicalised in their efforts to tar all trans folk as deviant. Anti trans folk like Rosie Duffield or Rowling will speak from double spread newspapers and in front of sympathetic journalists about how they’re being silenced, missing the irony, and platform seekers like Maya Forstater will throw away any decency to cling onto misinformed bigotry in the face of evidence to the contrary, shifting what was insisted as “biological reality” to philosophy just to propagate the hatred. What will it take for anti-trans people to accept that demonising an entire minority because of their perceived slights is causing damage to everyone- not just those they hate and fear?


Gender critical beliefs are a strange set of tenets which confuse anyone who doesn’t ardently subscribe to them- and still manages to flummox those who do.


“Women are being erased!” are you a woman? Are you being erased? Or is the definition of woman being widened for inclusivity? Does inclusion dilute or just offer more perspective? I’m sure you can guess my answer.


“People are being brainwashed into being trans” Fear not! There’s a 7 year waiting list, endless demeaning meetings and discussions, I’m sure anyone “brainwashed” will wake up from that.


“Trans women are men seeking to access women’s spaces for devious reasons” perhaps as a society we should address the problematic behaviour of so many men if this outlook on male behaviour is so widely shared – but trans women aren’t men, so blaming them for cis men’s actions is foolish and wrong.


“The world is going woke!” Enjoy your Forstater victory if you will – you’re perfectly entitled to think bigoted thoughts but, much like if I threw racial epithets around at work, if you are transphobic you will be fired. Think what you want, no one is the thought police, it’s just expected that if you’re transphobic you’ll either educate yourself out of bigotry or stay in that mind-set and keep it to yourself.

I’m loathe to mention the cis women at the Olympics who have been stopped from competing, or been asked to present her genitals to prove she is a woman because her performance was so good; but sometimes the only way to capture those who are indifferent to the plight of trans folk is to mention these women: because when it can be applied to you as a person, suddenly it becomes more of a threat.
Caster Semenya has been told she must “lower her testosterone levels” so she can compete in women’s events. But as a cis woman, who is the arbiter of what is a “womanly” testosterone level? And do those who decided this think that once you are over a certain level of testosterone you are not a woman?

There are so many arms to the nuance of the debate: the erasure of non binary or intersex folk in the debate, the harm done to cis women (Like Caster Semenya, disqualified for her body’s hormone production or Tabitha Chawinga, who was forced to strip naked in public to prove she is a woman) that it seems gender critical people overlook, and trans people will bring up these examples to show the harm being done- only to be met with accusations of agenda pushing. There’s also the case of anti trans folk who will blithely confirm that “only women can have periods, only women can get pregnant, only women can give birth”- excluding as always any trans woman OR cis woman who doesn’t fit that paradigm which frankly borders on elitist- I know several women who can’t conceive and menopause ensures any woman who lives to experience it does not have periods. We’re to the point of gender criticality where you will read anti trans people speaking about hip structure and bone length or number of ribs as if that in any way affects how people live on the daily- I think if you lie awake at night counting your womanly ribs you’re entitled to do so, but whether that’s a disturbing view to take on your body is not for me to answer for fear of upsetting people.

Anecdotally, I suffered from gynaecomastia for months as a teen boy and essentially grew TINY breasts which subsequently went away. This, according to gender critical thinkers, is something only women can do naturally: so what am I?
Usually you’ll be met with “people like this are outliers” which is correct but also discounts the valid experience of people who do not fit the stereotypical growth patterns experienced by many. Incidentally around 1.7% of the world is intersex, which is close to the number of people that would have died in the initial wave of COVID had there been no vaccine. That number, this number of outliers? 132600000. Seems like not an insignificant number of people.


Rather than meeting people outside of the gender norms with scorn and repulsion, perhaps there should be some give on the gender critical side, a consensus that their understanding of their own experiences, bolstered by endless rhetoric from their own circle, does not explain why people transition, or continue to transition even in the face of relentless abuse, even when facing 7 year waiting lists, under accusations of perversion or mental illness, with the threat of hate crimes from insults to rape and murder looming heavy over their heads.


Personally I’ve tried to have productive discussions with gender critical folk before, to try and understand the depths of their mistrust and hatred of trans people, especially trans women, and I’ll be honest: it frightens me. Not every time, but often enough, folk who ascribe to gender critical beliefs are frighteningly radicalised into believing that all trans women- in fact, not just trans women but anyone they see as a man- are dangerous opportunistic predators.
I’ve tried to argue for trans women repeatedly in this discussion and am always met with unproductive replies about me being a “prostate haver”, a “beard”, a “misogynist”. In my eyes it’s reductive to ignore the point that gender critical feminism at its heart sees anyone that gender critical people see as a man, as a threat.

Cis Men are the Problem


Is the view that men are a threat incorrect? Probably not, unfortunately. Seeing the statistics following the murder of Sarah Everard where 97% of surveyed women had said they have experienced sexually inappropriate behaviour, it’s absolutely understandable that women would be cautious, nervous and mistrusting of men. But conflating trans women, a different demographic to cis men is a mistake: as does bringing up articles about trans prisoners sexually assaulting women. Sexual assault is a horrific crime that anyone can experience and too many people do- one person experiencing sexual assault is too many. But tarring all trans women with the brush of a sexual offender is disingenuous – should we tar all lesbians with the brush of sexual predator because some lesbians commit sexual assault? Or do the same with gay men?
Should we ban gay and lesbian people from their gender’s bathrooms because they might be uncontrollably aroused by their fellow users?
The idea of this is ludicrous and rooted, as is the anti trans rhetoric, in the idea that any deviation from gender or sexuality deemed “the norm” is automatically a disorder, perversion etc.


Anti trans rhetoric comes from a place so close to homophobia that it clearly shares a postcode and seeing the arguments recycled for the 21st century is disconcerting: living in a time of the trans panic, I sense I understand how LGBT allies felt during the gay panic of the 70s and 80s. Having to defend trans people from the automatic association with pervert is demoralising at best, and seeing a group of people determined to ascribe gender presentation with perversion is a frustrating experience at best, when you see the damage done to people simply trying to live out their lives in peace.


Watching gender critical people be further pushed to think that the truth of trans is tied to sexual arousal is confusing. Being trans isn’t linked to sexuality- it’s why there are gay, lesbian, bi, asexual trans people. And every trans person has had to explain, repeatedly, at length, that transitioning is not linked to sexual arousal or fetish- it’s a deep seated need to be on the outside as you are within and that is something I don’t believe anyone who is not trans could understand, or experience- but can most assuredly empathise with.


The reason it’s so frustrating to see the trans panic be framed as “philosophical” or “a debate” is that there is no debate here: one side want to maintain their rights, improve their healthcare and societal standing so it’s adequate and doesn’t come with years of waiting and demeaning processes, create a supportive atmosphere for youths who feel the same. The other side will throw accusations of paedophilia or grooming, they will shout over rights that trans people have had for longer than I’ve been alive, warning of dire consequences that just never seem to happen, and wrongly ascribe blame to trans women when it should be aimed at cis men.


Even the desperation of trans people to distance themselves from problematic trans women – because every demographic has problematic people within it- does nothing to assuage the fears of the gender critical crowd. Folks like Yaniv or White (if you know them, you’ll understand) are widely disparaged amongst trans activists and yet the gender critical folk will still continue to apply the miscreancy of these outliers to all trans folk as a rule- it is an established practice of gender criticality to ignore the facts for the sensation.


No decent trans person would support a man who donned a wig and a dress to access a private space for nefarious reasons – I’ve seen as much said by at least 3 of the most prominent trans activists. And when it comes to spaces like prisons, forget gender presentation –why are sexual predators being housed with people in general- having someone invade your body is a base betrayal, and those guilty of it should be housed away from anyone and everyone else.


Gender criticality boils down to the idea that men are dangers, and perceiving men that way is a huge, systemic societal problem that needs to be addressed (because it is not an idea without merit) and, it is my firm belief, would salve the fear anti trans people hold because it is ultimately cis men, sexuality irrespective (as a gay man who has experienced multiple instances of gay men not understanding the simple concept of consent) who are the instigators of the issues women (and other men!) face.


Additionally, one of the faces of gender critical beliefs is Graham Linehan who now publishes a blog to espouse gender critical beliefs after being kicked off twitter for his relentlessly hateful conduct- he has made a new career out of being the face of a hate movement, and I’ve no doubt that history won’t look kindly on him. But one has to wonder what on earth is in Linehan’s mind when it comes to supporting a movement that looks so unfavourably on men- and in fact, why a movement based around the idea that men are dangerous seem so willing to accept him as one of it’s ringleaders. In my personal view, Linehan appears to be a pet of the gender critical crowd, useful because he is a man telling the gender critical supporters that they are correct, that men are something to be feared, insidious, and that trans women are the highest example of this. One wonders how Linehan is so intimately familiar with how these imaginary devious trans women who are, despite years of having the rights he contests, think… or in fact what he himself thinks, if he’s so convinced that supporting the ideology that all men are opportunistic predators thinks.


It’s an unfortunate reality that many men must be taught how to comport themselves when it comes to consent and decency, and this stance is often met with flat denial- usually from the men most in desperate need of hearing it. But again- trans women are not men, and shouldn’t be held to the same values as a cis man- whether you think they are women or not is irrespective of this point- trans women have a vastly different perspective and lifestyle than cis men do- or they would not be trans women.

Looking at the LGB alliance I can only feel scorn for a group of people whose ostensible mission is “Stop being bigoted to us- but keep being bigoted to THESE people”. Their mission is so debased as to only need to be looked upon with disgust. Splintering the community that has supported each other from it’s necessary inception is a fools errand, and to condone certain forms of bigotry as long as it doesn’t affect you is horrifying.


Supporting trans people is to support a tiny faction in society who desperately needs to be protected from the increasing radicalisation of people who deny science which backs trans lives, who insist without evidence that trans people are dangers or in any way “wrong”. I can’t help but feel after such a long time in this debate, if you haven’t come to the conclusion that supporting trans people is right and fair, perhaps you’re lacking in some of the empathy you’re desperate for people to apply to you in your “struggle to be heard”.

If wearing makeup, womens clothing, hormones, your literal brain telling you, and shared experience don’t make a woman- what does. Because it certainly isn’t the continuation of bigotry.