Let's go back to 2007

[Anlaf]

I was having a footle - back in 2007-2008 there were a number of submissions to Parliamentary committee on laws relating to hate crimes, and on extreme pornography.

They are pretty interesting. Shall we have a rummage?

Here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

And here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

In the 2017 overview Whittle says a group of transpeople clubbed together to raise money then approached women’s publications to write no fee articles. You have to have time and commitment to get this type of group if the ground, I’m interested in where funding come from in their early days too

2008 interview with Stephen Whittle for Equality & Human Rights Commission

Guardian 2007 interview,
'Stephen Whittle: Body of work
The law lecturer tells Chris Arnot how being a transsexual has put him at the forefront of a political movement'
(extract)
"We meet shortly before one of his frequent trips to New York, in his capacity as president-elect of the World Professionals Association for Transgender Health. "There's going to be a symposium of transsexual lawyers and academics," he says. "We need to review where we are and how far we've come."

The answer, in the UK at least, would appear to be a very long way in the 10 years since he co-founded the pressure group Press for Change. And the Manchester of the 1970s, where he first became active in the politics of gender and sexual orientation, seems light years away.

"At one time, we transsexuals were what other people wiped off the bottom of their shoes," he says. This is a man who knows what it's like to lose jobs on the basis of what he is rather than what he could do, a former self-employed builder who took a part-time law degree to further his business interests and then discovered that he could use the law to "fight back", as he puts it, against the injustices he feels have dogged him for most of his life. This is a husband and father who went as far as the European Court of Human Rights so that his long-term partner could be impregnated through artificial insemination and his name could be on their children's birth certificate.

"I'm just a bolshie bastard with an overwhelming desire for equality and justice," he says. And one who was made an OBE in the New Years honours list of 2005. "That said something very important about the way this country has changed," he maintains. "The government is now conceding that we've earned our stripes. We're included."

He claims that the six categories that now come under the umbrella of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights have been joined by a seventh: "When the CEHR recently published its equality review, alongside it was a research project that I led into the unlawful discrimination experienced by transsexuals and transvestites."

Honour bound
Whittle has been campaigning against that discrimination for three decades - hence the honour - but only in the past few years has there been significant progress at government level, he feels. The Gender Recognition Act gave him the chance, in June 2005, to marry Sarah, a psychiatric nurse who has been his partner since 1979. "She and the kids were with me when Prince Charles gave me the gong at Buckingham palace," he recalls. "So was my mum. She said it was the proudest moment of her life."

It seems unlikely that his father would have been as generous, had he still been alive. He was a representative of the old Britain, the old Manchester. "He was very much of the view that girls were girls and women were women," says Whittle. "I remember being on a holiday when I was about 13 and he hit my mother because she came out of the caravan wearing slacks and refused to change back into a dress."

By that time, the family were beginning to prosper, moving to middle-class Withington from the council estate of Wythenshawe. Whittle Sr, having fallen into a vat of dye at a chemical depot, was offered the choice of compensation or a desk job. He took the desk job and, despite being barely literate, discovered a hidden talent for technical drawing. Eventually he became manager of the plant, while his wife became a medical secretary at the Christie hospital. The middle of five children, Whittle envied his brothers but inherited his parents' drive to get on. In later life, that drive was fed by the generous doses of testosterone he persuaded his GP to prescribe. "I became quite feisty," he admits." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/17/socialcare.highereducationprofile

from recent thread folllowing retraction of false statistics quoted by Stephen Whittle.
OP MsMcWoodle wrote:
"Specialist advisor to Penny Mordaunt and the Women and Equalities committee which proposed the GRA revisions has been forced to retract false information about crime rates among trans women."
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1067772092211445760

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3436955-Stephen-Whittle

I can't get over the story about the pensioner. Why are they blaming the daughter? Why is the assumption that the mother would have been fine with the "strapping" carer if only her adult daughter hadn't committed 'incitement to hatred?'

Do they think an 88 year old woman has no mind or will of her own?

Two other things: The trans OP whose thread from 2017 was recently revived seemed to think that people with dementia aren't people any more, they have no thoughts or feelings.

And there was this on Twitter very recently too: a trans activist was asked if a woman with dementia was still a woman, because her identity had dissolved. He said she wasn't a person. twitter.com/ThrupennyBit/status/1079502134759120896

Is this stark, total dehumanisation of elderly people (elderly women, really) common with TRAs or is just a weird coincidence that I've seen three examples in three days?

Bump. Very enlightening.

Important collation of information by HairyLeggdHarpy, see link for Hansard transcript:

"The Gender Recognition Bill
(extract)

I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.

It was, in the Govt's eyes, FAR preferable to convert a same sex couple into a heterosexual couple via 'sex change' than it was to make same sex marriage legal:

#GRA2004

Note how it was supposed to be only a 'small number'

And the justification of "if we allow sex to change we can sidestep same sex marriage" appeared over and over again...

and again

One of the obvious flaws in the entire process was the deliberate confuscation of sex and gender. The govt admitted that the two concepts were NOT THE SAME

Note the NO.
And then note the utter balderdash that follows. In this order:

1. Gender is not sex.
2. Govt will legally recognise gender
3. Gender should be legal sex
4. Acquired gender = legal sex
5. Something unexplained about man, woman and male and female
6. Sex = Gender

To recap, sex and gender are not the same, govt acknowledges, but we'd like to create a law that pretends they are, whilst still knowing they are not. Cool. This paved the way for what we've now seen evidence for: that 'female' people with penises can commit rape. As we now know, this happens

Tebbit anticipated it, and the Govt acknowledged this would happen." (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388967-Illuminating-Twitter-thread-about-the-origins-of-the-Gender-Recognition-Act?

I'm fairly sure there's a WordPress article with more of this but haven't been able to locate it yet

Not the same thing, R0, but here's the history of the NHS post-GRA:

medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-bb86b0c3ebb

medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

Lang thank you, I was just about to start looking for that one as its so relevent.

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396859-Weve-been-lied-to-about-Single-SEX-wards-since-2010

OP Barracker wrote:
"They were ALWAYS based upon 'gender'.
The evidence is in NHS documents from 2010.
And the Department of Health were told, by the NHS team, not to tell people wards were segregated by sex, because they knew the policy was based on gender.

But the DOH purposefully used the word sex to the public instead.

We've been deliberately misled."

Professor Kathleen Stock speech WPUK House of Lords on the serious flaws and failings of the Women's & Equalities inquiry into Transgender Equality 2015-16.
link here

(extract)
So the question for all of us is: how to balance these competing interests?

I want to talk about how, in attempting to answer that question, public organisations are being misleadingly advised, sometimes with harmful results.

I take it that the selection of advisors on a particular issue should follow four basic and commonsensical principles:

· All groups affected should be represented

· Advisors should have relevant expertise, and should advise only on areas where they have expertise.

· Advisors shouldn’t have backgrounds which undermine their credibility.

· Advisors should, where possible, appeal to independently verified evidence to back up their views.

For an example where these four principles were not put into practice, I’d like to look at the select committee report from the Transgender Equality inquiry, which came out in January 2016.

Just to remind you all: this inquiry recommends removing any substantive constraints on who may legally change sex, for whatever reason. It also recommends a host of other policies: for instance

· Lowering the age at which one can legally change sex, to 16.

· Rescinding current provision in the Equality Act, to allow trans women to work and receive support in occupational settings like rape crisis centres and domestic violence refuges.

So, taking the principles just outlined one by one:

a) Were all affected groups represented, in the choice of witnesses to the Trans Inquiry?

In a word, no.

20 people were called as witnesses to the Inquiry, excluding MPs. 11 of these represented trans advocacy/ lobbying groups. 9 of these were more obviously ‘neutral’. No special advocates for other groups were called as witnesses. For instance:

· female-only groups and services,

· post-operative transsexuals against self-ID, and

· concerned parents of transitioning children

were not properly represented.

In the use of written submissions, there’s also a preponderance of trans advocates listened to, and the ignoring of other groups. To take just one example, 8 points made by transwoman Jane Fae appear in the Final Report. But written submissions such as those of transwoman Miranda Yardley, who is against self-ID; or the well-known academic Professor Sheila Jeffreys, don’t appear anywhere in the Final Report.

Perhaps the general optimistic thought was that trans advocate groups are able to responsibly represent both their own interests and those of competing groups. If so, this was, I suggest, a failure in practice.

We can see this when we look at some examples of what was actually said.

For instance:

· we find Jay Stewart, Director of Gendered Intelligence, arguing for the removal of sex-separated facilities in schools. This clearly has an impact on female schoolchildren, which should have been considered.

· We find James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance, arguing that traumatised female rape victims and domestic abuse victims who feel, as he says ‘uncomfortable’ with transwomen in refuges or rape crisis centres, should be ‘educated’ so that the transwomen can stay. This again discounts the interests of females.

· And we find the conclusion, apparently derived from the submission of Jane Fae, that — quote- ‘It is not unlawful .. to ask a person to produce a Gender Recognition Certificate, but it is in almost all circumstances unnecessary’. Yet there’s no mention in this report of the reasonable objective of getting accurate data about differences between the sexes, in areas where females are disadvantaged: for instance, when recording crime rates; or rates of sexual assault; or the pay gap.

Now, turning to the second principle:

b) Did witnesses to the Trans Inquiry have relevant expertise?

Well, of the 11 trans advocate witnesses that were called, 9 of them were trans people, and the other 2 were parents of trans people.

The perceived expertise of these witnesses seems to come from two things:

· having relevant lived experience; and

· in some cases, also founding or directing a charity or lobbying organisation.

I accept it is important to listen to the lived experience of members of a group of people when deciding on legislation which affects them. However, this is different from straightforwardly accepting recommendations from that group without questioning them. If you compare Patient-Public Involvement guidelines in the NHS: patients and public might be involved in shaping research questions, or in helping clinicians understand the impact of research: but the answers to those questions will still be substantially determined by more appropriately qualified experts.

We can again see the limits of expertise in some of the evidence actually given in the report.

So for instance,

· Take Susie Green, Chair of the charity Mermaids, which supports children in transition and their parents. Green is a former IT manager and parent of a trans child. She is quoted as recommending that puberty-blockers should be made available to older children who are 16 and 17, as well as younger ones. No consideration is given of how this is medically justified.

· James Morton, of the Scottish Trans Alliance, recommends that legal sex changes should be made available to the under-16s.

· Anna Lee, a representative of Lancaster Students Union, with a degree in Mathematics, recommends that national governing bodies for sport should relax their requirements around trans athletes.

In other words, we find frequent confusion between what witnesses are properly equipped to talk about; and matters which they have no expertise to talk knowledgeably about.

This has more general relevance to the way that public organisations rely on advice from trans advocates. If you go to the Mermaids website, you find this quote : ‘Mermaids has trained professionals in the NHS, Police Service, Social Services, Schools, CAHMS and the workplace.’ The Gendered Intelligence website says that they offer ‘a number of different trans training packages for staff in schools, colleges, universities and youth services.’

But with what authority? With what expertise? Members of these organisations do not typically have any professional qualifications, and if they do, that’s not the reason they are with those organisations. They are currently advising public bodies on the law, on medicine, on social policy, on education, and so on; and it is very unclear in some cases what their credentials are to do so.

Turning now to the next principle governing selection of advisors:

c) Did any advisors have backgrounds which undermine their credibility?

In my view, the most obvious counter-example here is Jess Bradley, called upon as the very first witness to the Inquiry. Even leaving aside Bradley’s suspension from the NUS since the Inquiry, there is already a strong suggestion of a lack of credibility here, when we consider that Bradley’s associated organisation, Action for Trans Health, publicly calls for, among other things:

· the immediate release and pardon of all trans prisoners;

· an end to all birth certificates; and

· hormones to be prescribed, free and upon request.

All of this suggests Bradley is an extremist who never should have been called to give evidence in the first place. A bit of due diligence could surely have established this.

Finally, I want to ask:

d) Did witnesses appeal to independently verified evidence to back up their views?

In many cases, no. The Trans Inquiry Report is full of emotive-sounding statistics which do not bear up under scrutiny. So, for instance, take the eye-catching claim from the second paragraph of the report: ‘High levels of transphobia are experienced by individuals on a daily basis.’ This is drawn from reports prepared by lobbying organisations, which ask self-selecting participants about what they perceive to be acts of transphobia. Victims of harassment are expected to be able to accurately identify whether the harassment was due to transphobia, or homophobia, for instance. That is often almost impossible for a victim to establish.

(Things aren’t helped here by Stonewall’s influential definition of transphobia: ‘The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity’. That makes anyone who denies that a transwoman is a woman, for whatever reason, transphobic — far outstripping what any reasonable law would prohibit).

Or consider another highly emotive claim made prominently in the Report:

‘ About half of young trans people and a third of trans adults attempt suicide.”

Digging into the footnotes and other sources, there seem to be two sources for this claim:

· the claim about children comes from a Mermaids powerpoint presentation, and

· the claim about adults comes from a report co-authored by James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance.

So in both cases, witnesses to the Inquiry have been instrumental in supplying the data used by the Inquiry. And the studies, when you look at them, are subject to several basic limitations — e.g. self-selecting participants recruited online via support groups; self-report; no comparison class; and some quite odd manipulation of the figures in both cases." (continues)
medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

@R0wantrees,

"I'm fairly sure there's a WordPress article with more of this but haven't been able to locate it yet"

When I first started looking at articles (particularly on Wordpress) on Trans issues back in October, I favourited them. Now when I go back to look at them, Wordpress seems to have deleted many.
I have lately been very dismayed at the way articles/twitter accounts/Youtube videos have been whisked away, never to be seen again.
It looks as though someone may be trying to rewrite history?
I thought Tebbit's and Moynihan's comments in your link were very insightful, particularly the one about sport considering what has come to pass.

"Anna Lee, a representative of Lancaster Students Union, with a degree in Mathematics, recommends that national governing bodies for sport should relax their requirements around trans athletes."

I wonder, would that be this Anna Lee?

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/26/first-trans-student-to-run-for-womens-officer-stands-up-to-backlash

I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new.

"Anna Lee, a representative of Lancaster Students Union, with a degree in Mathematics, recommends that national governing bodies for sport should relax their requirements around trans athletes."

I wonder, would that be this Anna Lee?

Andy this seems very likely as the detail from the article you have quoted states:
"Lee, 23 – a maths student at Lancaster University, who is currently vice president of welfare and community at the university’s student union, as well as trans rep for the women’s campaign – says she has been trolled online and sent thousands of abusive messages because she is transgender."

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new.

OP Sunkisses wrote:
'BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".

It's absolutely fascinating and well worth a watch."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327193-BBC-Open-Door-programme-45-years-ago-on-transsexuals-a-real-jaw-dropper

Stephen Whittle Wiki
(extract)
He knew he was romantically attached to other girls at school – he never told them, and so his love was not reciprocated – but he also knew that he was sexually attracted to men. On top of that was a strong desire to be a man, to grow a beard and to have a hairy chest. He had read articles about people like Della Aleksander and April Ashley who had had a sex change. In 1972, at the age of 16, whilst visiting his doctor about a sore throat he read about a female to male transman (FTM) transsexual person" (continues)

I missed this thread when it started (had a bit of a calm down, step back and reassess break on my social media use over Christmas and into the new year...)

This stuff makes me so angry - trans person's feelings prioritised over women's right to assert boundaries about who gets to touch their bodies (including genitalia - because if you're providing personal care for an 88 year old, this must include toileting). And these people can't see what's so fucking wrong about it. And this has been being pushed for since the early 2000s.

And these people can't see what's so fucking wrong about it. And this has been being pushed for since the early 2000s.

Sheila Jeffries describes transgenderism as part of the 'men's sexual rights movement' and describes (failed) attempts to push the boundaries of women's spaces back in the 1970s.

Speech is from the first 'We Need to talk' event which followed Maria Machlaclan being assaulted at Speakers Corner in 2017:

Thanks - that is an awesome clip R0wan.

Sheila Jeffries describes transgenderism as part of the 'men's sexual rights movement'

The more I read, the more I agree with this.

The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

Oooh, I feel addressed!!!
The thing is: I was "radicalised" long before I found Mumsnet in December 2018. I'd long been uncomfortable among my many liberal US feminist friends who called themselves cis without a second thought - I found the word abhorrent. It as if being trans is some random thing that could happen to anyone, and it was just pick of the draw if we were that or not.
Then one thing after another upset me. Every new level of nonsense and outrage drove me more and more in this direction. I ended up here, after a tip from a like-minded friend. How wonderful, to find my tribe.

This reminded me to have another ferret in <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20000305050419/pfc.org.uk:80/gendrpol/divided.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the PfC archives.

Here's Christine Burns in 1996, in that piece on allying with the "GLB"

There are some things that transsexual women don't share with their born-as-a-girl counterparts. The born-females have missed a whole experience of repression and denial that's scarred their transsexual sisters too.

Real lack of empathy for those comparatively dull, yet so very lucky 'born-as-a-girls'

Here's Christine Burns in 1996, in that piece on allying with the "GLB"

My head hurts reading that.

cf '50 Shades Of Gaslighting: Disturbing Signs An Abuser Is Twisting Your Reality'
by Shahida Arabi
(extract)
How Does Gaslighting Unfold?
As Dr. Robin Stern notes in her book, The Gaslight Effect:

“The Gaslight Effect results from a relationship between two people: a gaslighter, who needs to be right in order to preserve his own sense of self, and his sense of having power in the world; and a gaslightee, who allows the gaslighter to define {his or} her sense of reality because she idealizes him and seeks his approval.”

It is in the victim seeking validation and approval from the gaslighter that the danger begins to unfold. Gaslighting is essentially psychological warfare, causing a victim to habitually question himself or herself. It is employed as a power play to regain control over the victim’s psyche, sense of stability and sense of self.

By playing puppeteer to the survivor’s perceptions, the manipulator is able to pull the strings in every context where his or her target feels powerless, confused, disoriented and on edge, perpetually walking on eggshells to keep the peace." (continues)
thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

That's good stuff R0.

Now who knew that GIRES was set up as the charitable arm of Press for Change? I did not.

The Gender Identity Research and Education Society

Press for Change activists Bernard Reed and Yvonne Wingfield have been hard at work setting up a charity, which is now going for registration with the Charity Commission.

The idea is to allow the charity to take on - and expand - the current work of Press for Change in the areas of publication of information, education and training, research and support for students. PFC itself cannot be a charity, being of its nature political, but it makes sense to siphon off some of our activities into a charity, especially as the range of our activities continues to expand.

From the 1997 newsletter
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20000606005635/www.pfc.org.uk/newsltr/nwslet09.htm#sw-trains" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20000606005635/www.pfc.org.uk/newsltr/nwslet09.htm#sw-trains

(Said this before but PfC really were impressively well organised - logging friendly MPs, asking supporters to have face to face meetings with their own MPs, and using formal political structures like a charity and parliamentary forum.)

PFC itself cannot be a charity, being of its nature political, but it makes sense to siphon off some of our activities into a charity

Its worth on that basis looking at the political/lobbying work that GIRES has been involved with.

Datun wrote Wed 07-Mar-18
"GIRES seem to be very heavily invested in promoting treatment to children.

Like all the trans-pressure groups, they are evangelical about transgenderism.

Lily Maynard, whose child detransitioned, says:.

*GIRES (the Gender Identity and Research Society) has a very impressive sounding name but is neither a professional organisation, nor one with an academic foundation. Like others, it was set up by the parents of a transgender child. GIRES wants to teach ‘gender theory’ to children as young as two, and it seems that the teachers’ union is on board with this. Never has the acronym ‘NUT’ seemed so appropriate. GIRES is sending ‘gender experts’ into schools to fill the heads of kids with the notion that being ‘trans’ makes you a ‘special penguin’ (See the booklets here and spot the bad grammar.)

GIRES tells teachers that that such snowflakery should be rewarded with a cake or a party. This can only serve to confuse kids young enough to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. GIRES is quite candid about its desire to teach small children about transgender ideology “before children’s views become influenced by the prejudices of the adults around them”. This is an astonishing admission of the wish to influence very small children’s thinking about issues they can’t possibly understand. The result of one such talk in a primary school was discussed on another mumsnet thread, where a parent – who had not been told the talk was going to take place- reported on her children’s response. Her eldest told her “you can choose whether to be a girl or a boy and you can take hormones to change…” whilst her youngest told her they “couldn’t decide whether to be a boy or a girl… and wanted to know what medicine to take.”*

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/lilymaynard.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/when-is-a-girl-not-a-girl/amp/

Gendertrender has analysed quite a bit of what they have said. Amongst other things, the outrageous claim that transitioning can cure autism:

^"Anecdotally, young people who have been successfully treated, are often described as having no residual ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder]. The symptoms have disappeared once the dysphoria has been treated."

gendertrender.wordpress.com/?s=GIREs&submit=Search

I've seen some of their promotional material, and it's incredibly cult like. I would avoid at all costs. If you want to learn about how to address this issue for children, Transgendertrend has their own schools guide, which is balanced, rational, and most of all calm."
from thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3188145-anyone-know-the-gender-identity-research-education-society-gires

also:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3389255-Could-any-one-tell-me-about-Gires

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322310-gires-school-resources

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3160730-GIRES-Dsyphoria-Training-for-GPs

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3497770-RC-for-GPs-scraps-GIRES-developed-course

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3497770-RC-for-GPs-scraps-GIRES-developed-course

GIRES 2014 Accounts

extract shown in picture makes explicit GIRES and Mermaids joint campaign for medical interventions for 'gender non-conforming' children in UK since 2000 and their focus to make cross-sex hormone prescription possible:
www.gires.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GIRES-Accounts-2014.pdf