Break it down for me? 2 - General Break it Down archive thread

https://x.com/jonnywsbell/status/2030798915423887413?s=46

This is a good reminder of how far back the move to change identification goes. It is not a recent move. It was a very long term strategy.

NHS England pauses new prescriptions of cross-sex hormones for under-18s

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly0ppdzj2yo

and here is the archive version

https://archive.is/xNH7L

“NHS England has paused new prescriptions of cross-sex hormones to 16 and 17-year-olds who question their gender, after a review found previous research into how harmful or beneficial the drugs may be was "really weak".

Hormones can be prescribed to help a person develop characteristics associated with their preferred gender rather than their biological sex, and may produce irreversible changes like a deeper voice or breast growth.
The health service said a small number of teenagers would be affected and launched a consultation on longer-term guidance over use of the treatment.

One trans advocacy group has said it would consider legal action over the move.”

And

”NHS England said young people who can not access the treatment will be offered other forms of care at three NHS gender clinics for children currently operating in England.
The review was triggered following the publication of a major report into children's gender care by Dr Hilary Cass in April 2024, which said "remarkably weak evidence" on medical interventions was letting children down.

NHS England said it commissioned 10 independent evidence reviews to examine different aspects of the use of testosterone or oestrogen, either on their own or with other drugs for young people who identify as a gender different to their biological sex.

It found there was not enough good quality evidence to conclude overall whether the drugs benefited young people or harmed them, so NHS England will not issue new prescriptions while it continues to consider responses from advocacy groups and healthcare professionals.”

and the thread where the news was first released by Nick Wallis

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5500667-nick-wallis-in-dm-nhs-poised-to-stop-prescribing-puberty-blockers-and-cross-sex-hormones-to-trans-identifying-children-under-the-age-of-18?reply=150981873

AN ARTICLE ABOUT PRONOUNS AND LANGUAGE

The Brain, Language and Gender Ideology (Part 1)

https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1883893242892107818?s=20

(This is Part 1 of a two-part discussion on the role of language in advancing gender ideology and its effects on our psychology. Be sure to read both parts).
In English, at least, it began with pronouns. (1)

Before we had ‘Genderspeak’s’ litany of intentionally deceptive and bewildering terms such as ‘assigned at birth’; ‘embodiment goals’; ‘gender nonconformity’; and ‘misgendering’ (to name just a few), we had ‘preferred pronouns’. We were told that calling men ‘s/her’ and women ‘he/him’ was merely a harmless act of politeness and respect and would have no negative impact. Indeed, if we ‘misgendered’ a person (i.e. referred to them as their correct sex) we were increasing their risk of suicide.

But as it turns out, ‘preferred pronouns’ (actually and more precisely, ‘aberrant pronouns’) were an early salvo in the gender wars, fired when most of us were unprepared for what was to come. Now, because of misguided sympathy and the desire to live and let live, these aberrant pronouns have paved the way for the excesses of a crazed ideology. A 'belief' system that not only denies the reality of the binary nature of human sex but which, as we now have discovered cannot police itself, or rein in its more crazed adherents.

And, as with everything concerning gender ideology the only thought is to the mental ‘wellbeing’ of the trans person. No thought is given to how the use of ‘Genderspeak’ affects those who are being compelled to deny the evidence of their very eyes and to pretend the person whom they are addressing (or speaking of) has assumed a sexual identity to which they are not entitled, or, worse yet, purports to be of no sex at all.

The role of language (in furthering the aims of gender ideology)

Our uniqueness (and power) as humans derives from our use of language. A simple definition of language is: “a structured means of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary”. The purpose of language is therefore to effectively communicate meaning by facilitating interactions and understanding between individuals and groups.

There are about 7,000 human languages in existence today. And in every one of them, there is a word for ‘woman’ and there is a word for ‘man’.
This universal constant arises because our brains have evolved to almost instantly differentiate females from males. For the purposes of sexual reproduction and safety we need to be able to know quickly, if not immediately, whether we are looking at a female or a male of our species. It is a survival thing.

We are programmed from birth to differentiate sex. Newborns even with poor and blurry eyesight will gaze preferentially at a female rather than at a male face. This can be any female face of any age or 'race', not just their mother’s. Babies will instinctively initially seek, attune and bond with females as opposed to males. It is a survival thing.

Indeed the first word we all learn as humans is the word to describe ‘mother’. And in almost every human language this word is formed using the letter ‘M’ as this is the first sound (phoneme) a baby learns to make.

But ‘Genderspeak’ seeks to erase this innate understanding and linguistic expression of biological differences. It seeks by use of language to deny objective truth and to deceive. It uses language not to facilitate effective communication but to hinder it.

What happens when we are seriously (and not pretending) to speak of men as women (and vice versa)?

What does this do to our brains?

Psychological theories of language

There are a number of theories which explain why it is important for language to be clear and to convey meaning effectively. Two considered here are ‘Cognitive Load Theory’ and ‘Dual Processing Theory’.

Cognitive Load Theory

This posits that the brain has a limited capacity for processing information at any given time. When language is unclear or ambiguous it increases the ‘cognitive load’ making it harder for people to understand and retain the information being communicated.

An example of the impact of Cognitive Load Theory in the real world was provided in the 2021 census in England and Wales. Here it was asked: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” What did this question mean? It contains two abstract concepts ‘gender’ (note: not ‘sex) and ‘identify’, which each need a high-level understanding of English to decode. The question also presupposed a familiarity with gender ideology and an understanding that ‘gender’ is supposedly different from ‘sex’.

Consequently, the highest number of ‘transgender’ people in the UK was recorded in the London Borough of Newham, a strongly Muslim borough where 41% of residents do not have English as a first language and where 9% cannot speak English at all. (Brighton and Hove, described as the ‘LGBTQ+ capital of the UK' by contrast ranked only 20th in the number of ‘transgender’ residents).
The Office for Statistics Regulation eventually downgraded this part of the 2021 census from ‘official statistics’ to ‘official statistics in development’. This has never before happened since the census was first held in 1801.

Fourteen confusing words when all was needed was “are you female or male?”. A cognitive load indeed.

Dual Processing Theory

Another similar theory of language is ‘Dual Processing Theory’. According to this theory, information is processed through two different systems. ‘System 1’ and ‘System 2’. System 1 is fast, automatic and unconscious, while System 2 is slower, more deliberate and conscious.

'System 1' is typically responsible for quick, instinctive processing of language such as recognising familiar words, understanding the meaning of phrases and understanding conversation without deep thought. For example, when chatting with a friend, or asking a shop assistant for help or in the hundreds of unremarkable everyday conversations and verbal interactions in which we all engage.

By contrast 'System 2' is activated when we need to perform more complex linguistic tasks like parsing a complicated sentence or understanding abstract or unfamiliar language. Such as making sense of a technical article, or following a recipe, or instructions to put together a piece of IKEA furniture. (Or reading this piece, perhaps!)

In Dual Processing Theory both systems can work together. ‘System 1’ for everyday language and ‘System 2’ for when we need to understand something more complex.

But the language of gender ideology pushes us into System 2 with unnecessary frequency.

We are all now walking around in a fog of confusion where our brains are constantly having to untangle, decode, parse, simplify and then reconstruct what should be basic easily understood ‘System 1’ information.

Take this headline from the Daily Mail newspaper about a sexual assault that occurred in Guernsey in 2021, written by ‘journalist’ David Pilditch:
‘Transgender rapist, 19 is facing jail after she carried out sex attack on woman she invited into her home before she went on to identify as female’.

Admittedly, the headline was initially badly written, however, what does it mean? Was the attacker a woman or a man? Was the victim a woman or a man? What exactly is meant by 'identify' as female? Even a native English-speaker is forced to repeatedly read what should be a simple statement in order to unravel its meaning.

The rest of the article is even more confusing. It uses s/her pronouns throughout to describe the rapist (with of course absolutely no regard to the victim’s feelings). Oh, and the judge apologised to the rapist for describing him as a ‘transgender male’ because the rapist wanted to be referred to as a ‘transgender female’. What on was going on here? The judge isn’t the only one who was confused!

That newspaper article was needlessly complex and was thus rendered almost incomprehensible. To decipher its meaning we are pushed from 'System 1' to 'System 2' processing. And this is not even an academic paper. It is just an newspaper story. And it is now happening all of the time.

Trans language is being made deliberately confusing

The function of such cynical linguistic shenanigans is to impair our processing of language/information and to confuse us. And it works. For example, research by Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) conducted in 2023 found that 40% of Britons thought that a ‘trans woman' was a female. Upon such misunderstanding lies a gleefully reported tolerance for 'biological males' (the System 2 terminology now needlessly used to describe 'men') in using women’s facilities, for in women’s sports and for gender ideology in general.

‘Genderspeak’ thus impairs the efficiency of those parts of the brain responsible for processing language. We have turned the unique human ability of language against ourselves.

We also have to ask what happens when people have an impairment in their processing of language? For this discussion I defer to the attached article by ‘Melanie’ a Speech and Language therapist working in the NHS.
https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1882105449606009136

Is the English language to blame?

I am currently learning Arabic at beginner level. Arabic is a 'grammatical gender language'. Every noun is gendered. A book, a house, a table, a cat, a computer. It is either ‘male’ or ‘female’. Feminine words are distinguished by a grammatical sign called the ‘ta marbuta’. This looks like a raised ‘a’ or an ‘o’ and is added to the ending of a word to signify it is ‘female’.

So far, I have been taught that generally ‘things’ which “give life” are ‘female’. For example, the Sun, water, soil. Additionally, words such as ‘daughter’ and ‘mother’ are automatically assumed to be female therefore no ‘ta marbuta’ needs to be added. In fact, unprovoked, my teacher has stated that “we don’t need ‘ta marbuta’ for these words because how can a daughter be male?” “We know mother is female. No ‘ta marbuta’ is needed she says. It would be "wrong grammar", because "how can a mother be male?” How indeed? What, I wonder, would the Arabic language make of 'they/them' or 'ze/zir' pronouns, or “transw*n?” Maybe my teacher needs to become more ‘inclusive’!

When I lived in the Middle East, I was bemused by my clients’ addition of ‘a’ to my professional title ‘Dr’ (which I now understand to be the ‘ta marbuta’ suffix indicating I am female. I thus became ‘Doctora’, or ‘Dra’. But by introducing myself and signing documents as ‘Dr’ I was unwittingly signalling that I was male when evidently, I am not. Just as my doing this on an individual basis may have caused much confusion, I now wonder what the impact might be of ‘gender-neutral’ language on speakers of languages where gender is built into the grammatical structure. I suspect in such cases the brain is frequently in ‘System 2’ of cognitive processing (complex) when it should be in System 1 (simple).

I wonder whether gender ideology arose in America because of the structure of English. English is a ‘natural gender language’ where gendered pronouns are only used when referring to an individual’s sex. In English, nouns (apart from countries and ships) do not have a gender. By contrast in grammatical gender languages such as Spanish, French and as we have just seen, Arabic, nouns and pronouns are assigned a grammatical gender regardless of the actual sex of the person or the thing being referred to. In English, we also only have one second-person pronoun ‘you’ used for both males and females.

Thus far I have considered the impact of Cognitive Load and Dual Processing Theory in respect to English-speakers. It is confusing enough to process information when a single person is referred to as ‘they/them’, or a male he/she or vice-versa. But what must be the cognitive impact of gender ideology on speakers of grammatical gender languages?

It is not surprising then that people are becoming increasingly exasperated with gender ideology. Quite apart from its cruelty and misogyny and illogicality, it is simply just mentally tiring!

Could then gender ideology have arisen anywhere but in an Eng lish-speaking country? Is the simple lack of a gendered second-person singular/plural pronoun responsible for one of the greatest social and medical calamities in human history?

Over two thousand years ago in The Art of War, Sun Tzu said “all warfare is based on deception”.

This is indeed still true.

(1)
https://assets-cdn.sums.su/ED/NewsNEWS/A%20Short%20Guide%20to%20Sharing%20Pronouns%20for%20Trans%20Allies.pdf

Part two: https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1885085883843346704?s=20

WHAT DOES TRANS INCLUSION IN A LIBERAL STATE REQUIRE?

January 2026

https://hollylawford-smith.org/what-does-trans-inclusion-in-a-liberal-state-require-pre-print/

Abstract. One of the most prominent minority groups today is trans people. Those who see themselves as fighting for trans rights have tended to take these to include a right to legal recognition by the state, and social treatment by fellow citizens, as the sex of identification. These rights claims have been given substantial legal and institutional uptake. If trans people's full inclusion in public life requires legal recognition and social treatment as the sex of identification, then this is merely a description of things being as they should be. But if trans people's inclusion within the liberal state does not require these things, then this may be a description of a violation of liberal neutrality, the enforcement by the state of a contested and controversial conception of the good; and a tyranny of the majority, the weight of social opinion being pressed against those who want to talk about (what they see as) the fact that things are not as they should be. One way to gain some clarity on whether things are as they should be or not is to carefully consider the principles that liberal democratic states have used to secure the full inclusion in public life of other minority groups, and their application to trans people. I'll consider in particular toleration, collective and individual exemptions, and full accommodation; as they have applied to religious minorities, women, sexual orientation minorities, black people, and people with physical disabilities.

Conclusion

Arguments for adopting, or acting as though we have adopted, trans activist beliefs, in the name of the full inclusion of trans people in public life, appear to have failed. Trans people should be protected from discrimination, but trans activist beliefs are not owed more than toleration. The introduction of trans activist beliefs into law and policy in a liberal state should be just as concerning to us as the introduction of religious beliefs into the same. The insistent social enforcement of trans activist beliefs is a tyranny of the majority, upholding one group's interest in living as it believes it should at the expense of everyone else's interests in living as they believe they should. A liberal state is neutral between competing conceptions of the good; liberal individuals form and pursue their own conceptions of the good, the only constraint being that the pursuit does not harm others (Mill [1859] 1978) or wrongfully set back their interests (Feinberg 1987, Ch. 1). Liberalism does not, and cannot (coherently), require one person's participation (affirmation, validation, acceptance, endorsement, or adoption) in another person's projects. Toleration is required; indifference is sufficient. This is the same conclusion that Francione (2024) reached, just via a route likely to be more satisfying to those sympathetic to the case for trans
inclusion.

A GREAT SHORT EXPLANATION AS TO WHY ‘PASSING’ CANNOT WORK

https://x.com/loudbonnet/status/2015445855268979095?s=46

“I think it's pretty hopeless to defend women-only prisons except by saying no men, ever. That's the only principled position.”

“Of/c the male prison estate has to keep vulnerable men safe, but feminised men are not by any means the only vulnerable men. I don't see how one could ever justify using vulnerable female prisoners as a human shield for a subcategory of men.”

“And "passing" men are the worst problem of all. It's positively sadistic to say to women "everyone else here is a woman, or else so like a woman that you won't be able to tell". What could be more calculated to foster permanent hyper-vigilance in the already-traumatised?”

https://x.com/burnyourbinder/status/2012895501658566935?s=46

This is a clear video from Claire (burnyourbinder) about the reality of the impacts of testosterone on the female body.

HOW LEISURE CENTRES ENABLE SEXUAL PREDATORS:
A Women’s Rights Network Investigation, 2025

Here is a link to the pdf of this report from WRN. It is a grim reminder that there is a reason to improve safeguarding rather than to allow it to be weakened even more.

https://017ee2dd-4ea6-4d7f-869c-a043485bcc87.filesusr.com/ugd/a86851_84e4785fdf1b4c65afa177a0536de74c.pdf

Executive Summary

Building on our 2024 report “Leisure Centres: Putting Women and Girls at Risk”, a new WRN Freedom of Information investigation has provided data on sexual violence in leisure centres.

Based on the data provided, we can reveal that in one year (2023) there were;

16 rapes, 80 sexual assaults and 65 acts of voyeurism across 257 leisure centres in England and Wales.

The majority of victims are female.

Every victim has been catastrophically failed by the leisure industry.
The shocking statistics we have uncovered occur against a backdrop of shrinking access to single-sex changing facilities at swimming pools in the UK.

Mixed-sex changing villages are the default design for new swimming pools and refurbished wet-side changing areas, and they are a magnet for predators. Women and girls are being put at risk of serious sexual crimes because local authorities, sports councils, leisure centre operators and architects do not take women’s safety seriously. They ‘design-in’ harm and provide opportunities for avoidable abuse.

It is important to acknowledge that men who commit these crimes are known to escalate to more serious offences including sexual assault, rape and murder. One of Britain’s most prolific sexual predators used his phone to secretly take intimate images of women.

And in 2021, a report on upskirting by the Crown Prosecution Service warned, “According to our analysis, 15 [out of a total of 46] of the men prosecuted for upskirting since last April were simultaneously charged with other sexual crimes – including child abuse, sexual assault, extreme pornography, and wider voyeurism offences.” (this comes from this link:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/upskirting-public-urged-report-offenders-prosecutions-double)

The report also mentions Hertfordshire and why the Crime Prevention Officer refused to support an application for mixed-sex changing for a new swimming pool in Stevenage. "The officer cited 76 recorded crimes in 2024/25 at the existing swimming pool which has village changing". Details of those 76 crimes have not been mentioned except for: '“There have already been reports of voyeurism in the existing mixed changing facilities, and this could increase if mixed facilities are provided.'

It is also referenced from this article:

https://archive.is/aFcoW

And also this X thread is very useful too.

https://x.com/WomensRightsNet/status/2007523050095579268?s=20

AMY SOUSA - INSIGHT INTO MANIPULATION ON CONSENT and LANGUAGE.

I think this is a useful video in that Amy highlights several important things.

One is the nature of the boundary violations of male people, that even a boundary violation by deception is a significant issue.

But she also highlights the tactics and emotional manipulation that underlie the rhetoric people use to demand that male people are treated as if they are female people.
Remembering of course, that this can only ever be premised from a philosophical position. Because there is no material way for male person to change sex and someone’s feelings of gender dysphoria does not mean that they are materially the sex they want to believe they are.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2006188958586380420?s=46

Once you can strip away the emotionally manipulative language and behaviour, there is no logic or science that supports the demand that male people should be treated as if they are female

A LIST OF UK SPECIFIC SEX CRIMES INVOLVING MALE PEOPLE WITH TRANS IDENTITIES IN FEMALE TOILETS

https://x.com/suzxu/status/1903148306043220462?s=46

Katie Dolatowski, a p3dophile male identifying as trans, convicted of voyeurism & sexually assaulting a young girl in a female toilet in 2018 & allowed into a Leeds Women’s Aid refuge with vulnerable women & kids.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10492612/trans-paedo-katie-dolatowski-dad-lock-him-up/

Ivan Blidar, arrested for spying on a woman in a female toilet, claimed he thought Britain’s LGBTQ rules let him choose, saying, “I identify as a woman, I’m gay, I can pick any toilet—it’s usual in London pubs.”

https://archive.is/z3JS3

Ian Bullock, a violent male identifying as female, convicted Dec 2022 at Birmingham court for sexually assaulting a woman in public toilets at Birmingham New Street station.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ian-wright-british-transport-police-birmingham-crown-court-b1062093.html

Kurtis Mawson, a trans p3dophile, jailed for filming women in female toilets near Durham’s Odeon & sexually assaulting a tourist on a bridge. The 22-yr-old was caught standing on a toilet, peering into the next cubicle.

https://archive.is/00EOy

Joseph/Jo White, a violent male identifying as trans, jailed 5 yrs in 2018 for sexual assault, voyeurism, & making child abuse images. Abused a 2-yr-old & 11-yr-old, filmed women in bathrooms. "Heinous" crimes spanned 7 yrs.

transcrime Uk.com/2024/05/28/joseph-jo-white/

( copy and paste the above link and close the space between crime and UK - done so link isn’t hidden by MN).

Steven Ballantyne, a trans male, convicted Aug 2022 of outraging decency. Caught wearing a bra, masturbating in a ladies toilet at Alnwick petrol station, seen by a mum, her 5-yr-old, & another woman.

( Note: he was a tutor/teacher)

transcrime uk.com/2024/01/28/steven-ballantyne/

( copy and paste the above link and close the space between crime and UK - done so link isn’t hidden by MN).

Jonathon/Charlene Mallon, violent male identifying as trans, jailed for life in 2014 for raping & assaulting 6 women over 13 yrs. Met victims at church, abused them in toilets & homes. "Monstrous" acts, min 10 yrs before parole.

https://reduxx.info/scotland-serial-rapist-seeking-transfer-to-womens-prison-following-name-change/

Paul Neary, a trans male, convicted 2016 for child abuse images, got suspended sentence. Worked as ice cream seller 18 months. Found with Barbie dolls, kids’ underwear, & photos of sex acts in public toilets near his van.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-ice-cream-van-man-22762417

Lee Baker/Tiffany Aching, violent male identifying as trans, convicted of stalking in 2017. Fined £200, no jail. Posted pics from female toilets & women in underwear on X, reported women questioning gender ideology.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6906977/Transgender-army-veteran-jailed-15-months-harassment-campaign.html

Joel Hardman, violent trans male, convicted 2011 for voyeurism, spied on women in female toilets with a rubber mask & wig—first at uni, then Bullring mall. Stabbed a cop in 2012, convicted of assault & knife possession.

https://archive.is/0aNn9

Mark Lazarus, violent trans male, jailed indefinitely 2012 for trying to rape a 71-yr-old in a female toilet. Carried out attacks on women & girls while he was dressed in female clothing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209304/Mark-Lazarus-Cross-dressing-sex-attacker-obsessed-skirts-tried-rape-woman-71-Teignmouth-Devon.html

LEONARD SAX REBUTTAL OF 1.7% ‘INTERSEX’ STATISTIC FROM FAUSTO - STERLING

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling

Leonard Sax, August 2002

Abstract

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

TL/DR

the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

It is discussed here in this article :

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red

Here we can see that the large majority (88 percent) of Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7 percent figure is taken up by one condition: late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH). These individuals have completely normal male or female genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes. The sex of these individuals is not ambiguous, so to label LOCAH as an intersex condition is a far cry from what most people and clinicians conceptually envision the term to capture.

The next most prevalent DSD on Fausto-Sterling’s list include any chromosomal deviations from classical XX and XY (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, etc.). However, these conditions do not result in ambiguous genitalia and therefore cannot be considered intersex in any clinically relevant sense. (see my previous post about why sex chromosome variants are not their own unique sexes.)

Lastly, vaginal agenesis, the next most common DSD on the list, is not generally considered an intersex condition, as girls with this condition are genotypically XX, possess perfectly normal ovaries, and can become pregnant and birth their own children following vaginoplasty.

They are unambiguously female.
When these common DSDs are removed, and intersex conditions are more precisely defined as “conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female,”Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7 percent figure drops dramatically. According to Sax, “Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling's estimate of 1.7%.”

Another example of a male person using ‘female’ to describe himself when sex matters

https://archive.is/ZLmix

Trans stalker tells judge 'I'm a female' in demand for switch to women's prison

12 Dec 2025

Vivienne Taylor, 28, is currently in custody awaiting sentence for the pursuit of Tina Rashid, in actions which stretched across four years.
At a hearing at Isleworth crown court on Monday, Taylor joined on a videolink from HMP Wandsworth, a male category B jail in south London.

“I have a female recognition certificate”, Taylor told Judge Hannah Duncan. “I am a female.
“I should be treated as such, I should go to Bronzefield or another female establishment.”

However, the judge replied: “While in the prison estate, where you are hosted is not something that has anything to do with me.

AN INTERVIEW THAT GIVES A PERSPECTIVE OF PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF GENDER IDENTITY:

The War on Norms: Derrick Jensen Traces Anarchism, Queer Theory, and Trans

From Beyond Gender with Stella O’Malley

Derrick Jensen is an environmental philosopher and author of over 25 books. In this conversation with Stella and Bret, he traces the intellectual lineage from anarchism through queer theory to trans, explaining how the rejection of all social norms, including those protecting children, found its way into academic theory and beyond.

Jensen discusses how his book The Culture of Make Believe predicted the rise of the insane right, but when he tried to write a companion critique of the insane left, his publisher held the manuscript for five years before dropping him entirely for criticizing queer theory.

He walks through the founding documents most people have never actually read, including Gayle Rubin's 1984 essay "Thinking Sex" and Michel Foucault's advocacy for abolishing age of consent laws. The conversation also covers Karen Horney's concept of "womb envy," Peggy Reeves Sanday's cross-cultural research on sexual violence, and DARVO, the pattern where abusers deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender.

Stella and Bret also ask Jensen about his viral "Queer Theory Jeopardy" moment.

CARROTANDCORNSOUP : A LETTER TO THE WOMAN WHO CALLED ME A TERF

Because we should have a reminder of the breadth of this issue and how long women have been clearly articulating the issues.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3108929-a-letter-to-the-woman-who-called-me-a-terf?reply=73953319

To the woman who shrieked at me that I am a bigot and a terf and a hateful transphobe for defending women's rights,

Ten, fifteen years from now, I ask you to remember me.

Remember me when you have your first baby and you're referred to throughout your pregnancy as a birthing individual, a pregnant person, and it makes you feel kind of dehumanised and you wish they'd just call you a woman, a mother, because that's what you are. But they're not allowed, because it's illegal to say only women can be pregnant and give birth.

Remember me when you give birth and you feel vulnerable and exposed and you really want a woman beside you who understands what you're going through and instead your midwife is a six foot man with stubble in a dress and you know he isn't a woman but you're not allowed to object, even when you need to be examined and you just want a woman to do it but you know you can't say anything because that would be hate speech, even though your body is screaming no.

Remember me when your elderly mother, who has lost her mind to dementia, goes into a care home and is told that her carer, Susan, is a woman, because you asked that she only be cared for by women. And even in her addled state of mind, she knows that Susan is a man, and you know Susan is a man, but you cannot object, and she has to allow Susan to perform her intimate care, because to object would be hate speech.

Remember me when your daughter comes home from school crying, the daughter who has spent the last five years training to be the best athlete in her class, her school, her district, she's crying because Lucas in her class, one of the fastest boys, has decided he identifies as female for now and so is allowed to run in her race, and she knows it doesn't matter how hard she trains, he will always beat her, and she can only ever hope for a silver medal now. Or bronze, if there is another Lucas.

Remember me when you go into a toilet late at night, perhaps in a bar, and there's noone else around, and a guy walks in, he has a beard and is wearing jeans and a t shirt, and the way he looks at you seems off, and you feel afraid and unsettled and worried he might hurt you. But you can't challenge him, because if you do he'll say he's a woman and has as much right as you do to be in this toilet, a place where many years ago you might have come to feel safe.

Remember me when you go for a promotion, for a board position at work that's designated for a woman. You've put in the hours, you've worked so hard, you know you deserve it. And the position goes to Lola, who until last year was a 50 year old man. Lola will never do anything inconvenient like needing time off to have babies, or to deal with any health issues that you, a woman might face, like endometriosis, breast cancer, PND. Lola is a woman just like you, and your company are happy that they have fulfilled their quota of women members on the board.

Remember me when you read on the news that crime statistics for women committing rape and murder are on the increase, and now women carry out a much higher number of rapes and murders than they did when you were a teenager or a young woman. And you know that these 'women' are men and that the statistics are wrong, but to challenge this would be hate speech. Remember me too, when these women rapists are locked up with vulnerable women in female prisons and cannot escape, because to challenge the presence of the women rapists with penises in prison with them would be hate speech.

Remember me when your son comes home from school and says that he's learned at school that you can change sex and that some girls have penises and some boys have vaginas and that his teacher said that because he likes playing with girls and dolls that maybe he is really a girl in the wrong body. And you think, no, you are just my wonderful, unique, son, and you were born in your own body.

Remember me when a few months down the line the teacher calls you in and says she's concerned that you are not validating your son's identity and that she's noticed you are still referring to him by the name you so carefully chose for him when he was born, and calling him a boy, when he is actually a girl, and that she doesn't want to have to involve social services but she's worried she might have to if you continue to misgender your son and deny his real identity. And you know that she will, because it's happened before in a school near you, and you are afraid.

In this brave new world that you helped to create, look around for your transactivist friends, your lefty male allies, the ones you stood beside and yellled 'terf, transphobe, bigot' with, with you shouting the loudest, because you wanted to show what a good ally you were, how inclusive, how progressive. Where are they now? Why, they are where they always were. Benefitting from the patriarchy. Enjoying the new, improved version of it that you helped them to build by crushing the resistance from the women who spoke up for their rights. This has all cost them nothing; it has made the world a better, easier place for men. It has cost you and your sisters who campaigned with them for virtue cookies, everything.

And me? I'll be where I've always been. Fighting for your rights. Fighting to undo the damage.

I'll have your back, as I always have done.

SARAH VINE KC AT THE LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE 2025

From 4.11 minus

"I am yet to encounter anybody who can explain, describe or define gender identity to me without finally resorting to an acceptance that it is essentially a
metaphysical belief. I should be absolutely clear. I do not deride or demean metaphysical beliefs. I have plenty of them myself.

I do not however in a democratic society expect them to be protected as though they were material characteristics."

then at 7.20 mins

"more than Stonewall, more than any of their uh connected or aligned organizations, there is one man in this country who is, if you'll excuse me, fucking dying for for this government to pass this legislation, both in terms of conversion practices and in terms of hate crime.

That person is Nigel Farage. He will have the biggest party about blasphemy
law. And the worst thing about it is he'll be right. Because what you're
doing when you are saying we will protect transgender identity or indeed gender identity above and beyond any other belief is that we have now created a hierarchy of beliefs and the belief in gender identity and the manifestation of that belief sits at the top.

Everything else is subordinate to that. That is not a proper balance of rights.

So here are the problems then with a law involving transgender identity.

The definitions that are currently available in legal sources go like this.
Section 11 of the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act 2021
defines transgender identity as follows.

A person is a member of a group defined by reference to transgender identity if the person is a maleto-female transgender person, a female to-male transgender person, a non-binary person, a person who crossdresses.

When you boil it down, the definition of transgender in that act is transgender.
Helpful. Um, section 666, it's probably a coincidence of the sentencing act,
states this references to being transgender include references to being
transsexual or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or a part of a process of gender reassignment.

What the keen eyed and keenrained among you may have noticed there is that that is not a definition because a definition by definition excludes everything that does not fall within it. That definition excludes nothing. It tells you what it does include but it doesn't tell you what it excludes.

This however is my favorite. It's not law exactly, but this is taken from the
Crown Prosecution Service charging guidance on consent, specifically sexual
consent. These are the words that they have used and published.

The way in which someone is perceived or experiences themselves is commonly known as gender identity.

So um if you can't define something um I know a lot of people go it's fine
we can let the court sort it out. can't let the court sort it out because if you
have something that is completely nebulous, you are simply setting into train
endless endless endless litigation.

Here is a snipped clip

https://x.com/treesey/status/1996545116774002689?s=20

Full video

ONE OF THE RESEARCHERS BEHIND HOW WOMEN’s BREASTMILK INTERACT WITH THEIR INFANTS

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19f8K414tC/?mibextid=wwXIfr

In 2008, Katie Hinde stood in a California primate lab staring at hundreds of milk samples. Male babies got richer milk. Females got more volume. Science had missed half the conversation.

She was a postdoctoral researcher at the California National Primate Research Center, analyzing milk from rhesus macaque mothers. For months, she'd been measuring fat content, protein levels, mineral concentrations. The data showed something she hadn't expected: monkey mothers were producing completely different milk depending on whether they'd given birth to sons or daughters.

Sons received milk with higher concentrations of fat and protein—more energy per ounce. Daughters received more milk overall, with higher calcium levels. The biological recipe wasn't universal. It was customized.

Hinde ran the numbers again. The pattern held across dozens of mother-infant pairs. This wasn't random variation. This was systematic.

She thought about what she'd been taught in graduate school. Milk was nutrition. Calories, proteins, fats. A delivery system for energy. But if milk was just fuel, why would it differ based on the baby's sex? Why would mothers unconsciously adjust the formula?

The answer shifted everything: milk wasn't passive. It was a message.
Hinde had arrived at this question through an unusual path. She'd earned her bachelor's degree in anthropology from the University of Washington, then completed her PhD at UCLA in 2008. While most lactation research focused on dairy cattle or developing infant formulas, Hinde wanted to understand what milk actually did in primate mothers and babies.

At UC Davis, she had access to the largest primate research center in the United States. She could collect milk samples at different stages of lactation, track infant development, measure maternal characteristics. She could ask questions that had never been systematically studied.
Like: why do young mothers produce milk with more stress hormones?

Hinde discovered that first-time monkey mothers produced milk with fewer calories but higher concentrations of cortisol than experienced mothers. Babies who consumed this high-cortisol milk grew faster but were more nervous and less confident. The milk wasn't just feeding the baby's body—it was programming the baby's temperament.

Or: how does milk respond when babies get sick?

Working with researchers who studied infant illness, Hinde found that when babies developed infections, their mothers' milk changed within hours. The white blood cell count in the milk increased dramatically—from around 2,000 cells per milliliter to over 5,000 during acute illness. Macrophage counts quadrupled. The levels returned to normal once the baby recovered.

The mechanism was remarkable: when a baby nurses, small amounts of the baby's saliva travel back through the nipple into the mother's breast tissue. That saliva contains information about the baby's immune status. If the baby is fighting an infection, the mother's body detects the antigens and begins producing specific antibodies, which then flow back to the baby through the milk.
It was a dialogue. The baby's body communicated its needs. The mother's body responded.

Hinde started documenting everything. She collected milk from over 250 rhesus macaque mothers across more than 700 sampling events. She measured cortisol, adiponectin, epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factors. She tracked which babies gained weight faster, which were more exploratory, which were more cautious.

She realized she was mapping a language that had been invisible.
In 2011, Hinde joined Harvard as an assistant professor. She began writing about her findings, but she also noticed something troubling: almost nobody was studying human breast milk with the same rigor applied to other biological systems. When she searched publication databases, she found twice as many studies on erectile dysfunction as on breast milk composition.

The world's first food—the substance that had nourished every human who ever lived—was scientifically neglected.
She started a blog: "Mammals Suck...Milk!" The title was deliberately provocative. Within a year, it had over a million views. Parents, clinicians, researchers started asking questions. What bioactive compounds are in human milk? How does milk from mothers of premature babies differ from milk produced for full-term infants? Can we use this knowledge to improve formulas or help babies in NICUs?
Hinde's research expanded. She studied how milk changes across the day (fat concentration peaks mid-morning). She investigated how foremilk differs from hindmilk (babies with bigger appetites who nurse longer get higher-fat milk at the end of feeding). She examined how maternal characteristics—age, parity, health status, social rank—shaped milk composition.

In 2013, she created March Mammal Madness, a science outreach event that became an annual tradition in hundreds of classrooms. In 2014, she co-authored "Building Babies." In 2016, she received the Ehrlich-Koldovsky Early Career Award from the International Society for Research in Human Milk and Lactation for making outstanding contributions to the field.

By 2017, when she delivered her TED talk, she could articulate what she'd discovered across a decade of research: breast milk is food, medicine, and signal. It builds the baby's body and fuels the baby's behavior. It carries bacteria that colonize the infant gut, hormones that influence metabolism, oligosaccharides that feed beneficial microbes, immune factors that protect against pathogens.
More than 200 varieties of oligosaccharides alone. The baby can't even digest them—they exist to nourish the right community of gut bacteria, preventing harmful pathogens from establishing.

The composition is as unique as a fingerprint. No two mothers produce identical milk. No two babies receive identical nutrition.
In 2020, Hinde appeared in the Netflix docuseries "Babies," explaining her findings to a mass audience. She'd moved to Arizona State University, where she now directs the Comparative Lactation Lab. Her research continues to reveal new dimensions of how milk shapes infant outcomes from the first hours of life through childhood.
She works on precision medicine applications—using knowledge of milk bioactives to help the most fragile infants in neonatal intensive care units. She consults on formula development, helping companies create products that better replicate the functional properties of human milk for mothers who face obstacles to breastfeeding.

The implications extend beyond individual families. Understanding milk informs public health policy, workplace lactation support, clinical recommendations. It reveals how maternal characteristics, environmental conditions, and infant needs interact in real time through a biological messaging system that's been evolving for 200 million years—longer than dinosaurs.

Katie Hinde didn't just study milk. She revealed that the most ancient form of nourishment was also the most sophisticated. What science had treated as simple nutrition was actually a dynamic, responsive communication between two bodies—a conversation that shapes human development one feeding at a time.

Here is another artlicle about her work

https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2016/04/22/breast-milk-liquid-gold-infants-hinde-says

a study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35352583/

And where her work has led to so far

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/09/11/breast-milks-benefits-are-not-limited-to-babies

This is a tweet from Aja that is well worth adding here.

David Aaronovitch tweeted on the 20/11/2025

“Why? What does it cost you to have Jan Morris called a woman?”

Ajatheempress answered on the 21/11/2025:

-start-

Glad you asked.
When men get called woman they get put in the “female” box, and it costs women everything we ever fought for. We lose fairness in sport, because suddenly a bloke can walk in, take the medals, the records, the scholarships, and everyone’s meant to clap like it’s progress. We lose the safety of our own spaces — refuges, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons — all turned into mixed-sex free-for-alls just to keep men’s feelings warm.

We lose dignity, because apparently women aren’t allowed a single moment of privacy without a male body in the room. We lose accuracy in healthcare, because female biology suddenly has to take a back seat to someone’s identity drama. We lose political representation, because men now tick the “woman” box and take seats meant for women. We lose sex-based crime data, because male violence gets washed clean and relabelled as “female offending.”

We lose language — our words, our names for our bodies, our culture — all replaced with creepy pseudo-medical nonsense to avoid hurting men’s egos. We lose the ability to tell the truth about anything: periods, birth, menopause, breastfeeding, lesbianism — everything has to be rewritten to centre men.

We lose single-sex education, religious female-only spaces, and community groups, because apparently every boundary women draw is an act of oppression. We lose funding for women’s organisations unless we agree to pretend men are women. And lesbians? We lose our entire orientation if we don’t perform obedience on command.

We lose safety from male offenders in prison, because their feelings outrank women’s bones. We lose the right to speak openly about male violence without being branded hateful. We lose job protections, because men now qualify for initiatives built to counter sexism against women.

And the biggest loss?
We lose the meaning of the word “woman” — the one political category that exists for a reason: because female people are oppressed as female people. If that category goes, our rights go. Our safety goes. Our history goes. Our future goes.

All because men demanded access to absolutely everything women have, right down to our name.

-end-

Thank you Aja. You have always had such a way with words.

This is the Victoria, Australia ad campaign where women are being told to ignore their instincts

This is the lift segment

And the full segment

And a reaction video that is worth watching explaining more about it and why women rejected it.

VIDEO COLLECTION OF PSYCHOLOGISTS & THERAPISTS DISCUSSING THE IMPACT OF GENDER IDENTITY

Ryan Rogers compiled this collation of sections of his interviews around this topic. It might be an interesting thought provoker.