The sacrificial lamb: Transsexual "Louise" blames transgenders and GCs for everything. Oh, and also the Government. And the NHS. And gender clinics. And GRCs. And possibly my dog.

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

https://genderblog.net/a-transsexual-writes/

Well, this is odd: a strange blog from Nick Wallis, written almost entirely by a "transsexual" (self-termed) person called Louise.

I wouldn't even know where to start to respond to such hyperbole, but the comments by Jennifer Gourley, in the Comments section, say pretty much everything I could think of.

One small quote from "Louise" (it's a pseudonym) sums it up:

"So you see we’re the little guy in the middle being shot at by both sides. The sacrificial lamb in somebody else’s war."

The "little guy" would be transsexuals. Or something.

Nick Wallis gave a great opportunity there to "Louise" and a platform to speak to an audience L would not necessarily have access to.

"Louise" unfortunately just reinforced the underlying hatred of women which comes across in so many of these articles.

Well said. There's only one side that campaigns to keep people silent - and it's transactivists. As alcove perfectly demonstrates.
I thought it was a sad piece with Louise completely missing the groups and individuals who have done so much harm to Louise. Sadly it did demonstrate the overwhelming self centredness that we see so often and zero empathy for women - ironic from a man who claims to be one.

Thank you for this. If I might add (unless I missed it) that the pc of gender reassignment should never be applied to children. This is an adult ideology and children are entitled to be safguarded from notions that they are ill eqipped to navigate until they've developed th intellectual maturity and critical thinking required to make such life changing decisions.

half way through before any mention of a literal Nazi (Goebbels in this case).

disappointing

Louise complained about no longer being able to access cross sex hormones from his GP:

“And knowing that it can take YEARS to be given a first appointment at these clinics I am mortified to think that in the meantime my health would go downhill rapidly, facing horrific bone deterioration, not forgetting changes to my appearance and cognitive decline. So by the time they saw me I could find myself in a wheelchair. Rather too late then I fear.”

This paragraph alone singles him out as male with a sense of entitlement. He seems to think that he should continue taking them forever, unlike actual females who routinely have their hormone replacement therapy stopped after a certain length of time.

That’s the main reason why so many of us actual women have a miserable and painful old age due to osteoporosis and subsequent fractures.

Louise is keen to protect his health but it’s the double standards that are relevant here. He did this to himself by having his gonads surgically removed. Those of us with severe osteoporosis had no choice.

You're right and separating out gender nonconformity from the transexual pathway in law and in culture would be a really valuable part of protecting children. Children should be liberated and proud to be gender nonconforming without any expectation or encouragement that this should be linked to physical or surgical treatment.

I think the point is that it's not Louise and similar who came for our rights. The primary force for obliterating womens rights started with the autogynephiles who wanted to keep their male sexual organs and gained sexual thrills from invading women's privacy and overruling women's boundaries with no intention of ever changing their own bodies, but the legislation was too flabbily worded so that what was intended for the tiny number who can't live with their own dysphoria could be claimed by any man who likes the idea of being in command of what women must do.

Thanks for the link, I read the comments, they were very interesting, I wonder if Louise will read them?

I don't have a lot of sympathy for him I'm afraid, he seems to blame the NHS for diagnosing him, but I think he only heard what he wanted to hear. The fact that if he doesn't get his medication his health will suffer, is on him, all the things he lists would have been avoided if he hadn't done what he did to himself.

I'm afraid I do not buy into this

read the article

louise doesn't give two hoots about women. he's not our friend. he may not be invading our privacy for sexual thrills, but he's still invading our privacy

Everyone knows there are many reasons to transition. Louise is, presumably, the HSTS of Ray Blanchard's typology.

He may not be a cross dressing fetishist who gets off on the idea of women's oppression, but he certainly wants to avail himself of everything to do with women in order to satisfy his own needs and validate his self image.

As PP have said, women, their needs, wants, and rights, are fucking nowhere in this man's 'rant'.

We have had many men on here of the same background and type as Louise. Most of them characterised by their long screeds of Poor Me history.

I've no doubt it's completely genuine. I've equally no doubt that they see absolutely zero sense of self entitlement or arrogance in their angry demands to appropriate everything to do with women to accommodate their sense of Poor Me.

Do they fetishise women's oppression? Maybe a bit, but not as much as AGP's.

Do they want to use women, to the extent where women's rights are fucking nowhere, abso-bloody-lutely.

There are a lot more comments under the blog now than there were when I first posted. Most responses are ... unsympathetic. It's very clear, at least for those who know about and read Nick's blog, that most people have run out of any amount of sympathy they might once have had. "Louise" is not doing himself any favors with his ranting and (what I see it as) self-pity. But, it's also very clear how much damage and overreach has been done by trans activists. Once ordinary people (meaning, not politicians, activists, or those with something to gain) really start to understand the issues and what women are up against, any support just falls away.

RareGoalsVerge Where did you get the number post op transexuals from?

The GRA never specified any surgery or drugs, and the PC of GR isn't exclusively about surgery, its about proposing to changing physiological or other attributes of sex. It could be a pronoun change.

If 'transexual' are cross about the trans umbrella, they should have spoken up when the GRA was being written or the PC of GR was introduced. It was clear from 2004 or 2010 who was included - anyone with a diagnosis or anyone with an inkling.

If there is a difference between transexuals and transgender, they were both included in the GRA and the PC of GR nonetheless. And the transexuals were happy to use transgender when it was advantageous for them.

Yes - to clarify that gender reassignment can never apply to children would be to safeguard children permanently from the gaslighting and grooming that they've been on the receiving end of for years. Transgender Trend have pointed out that
"If a child (of any age) is ‘proposing to undergo…reassignment of their sex’ this raises questions. Understanding and safeguarding that child comes first, above considerations of not falling foul of the Equality Act. A child should not be unquestioningly placed in a protected category and assumed to have adult understanding and capabilities"

Sorry to derail this fascinating thread.
.

And the transexuals were happy to use transgender when it was advantageous for them.

100%.

It's human nature, of course. But they were using 'transgender' to appropriate women's rights from the very beginning. None of it was theirs to take. Zero.

Other men have picked up their ball and run with it, but they were running with it anyway, just a bit quieter and not as fast.

I take your point, but I don't agree at all, and I'll tell you why.
There is nothing in that article that shows any respect for women or women's rights. Or any recognition that we fought for them and why they are necessary.

He's someone who sees what use people can be to him in his need for validation. I didn't see it at the time when I was giving my support in the 80s and 90s. I saw transsexuals as a marginalised group who needed support. I saw things through the lens of the last century, not 2026.

I see now that the transsexuals who eventually gained a certificate of legal fiction have never spoken up and dissociated themselves from the likes of those with AGP or their fellow travellers. They looked the other way for many, many, years. They never collectively dissociated themselves from the Watsons, Haydens etc. They got what they asked for, and then let the people he now claims to detest, come rushing through. He can't even bring himself to use the word women. The article speaks volumes to me. He hates us. He always did. I'm a woman not a " GC " .

He's as much part of the problem as are the TRAs he purportedly hates. "Louise" clearly doesn't give a shiny shit about women and girls, it's all about "Louise". He's only speaking up now ime because he's not happy with being transferred to a different part of the NHS with other trans identifying men. He seems to think that THEY are somehow different to himself as HE'S had surgery. He's still biologically as male as they are. I'm not really interested in their differences now, they are all the same in trying to take my rights away from me.

Somehow, in his mindset, his situation is all the fault of "The GCs" and the NHS. Decades on, I'm all out of sympathy for women haters crying " poor me" because we won't stand aside and allow them to trample all over our hard fought for rights.

So I must bow down and worship the great male journalist to pass your GC purity test? Goodness me, you are strange. You lot really can't cope when someone isn't as dogmatic and frankly cruel as you, can you?

Do you work for The Sun? Because you are excellent at making things up that no one has actually said.

The post is so dramatic, I thought 'Louise' had made an appearance.

You've caught me! I'm a rival journalist bitter over Nick's position in GC circles. Rather than just someone who can see through his grift. Have you honestly never questioned why people who are financially struggling suddenly seem to care about women's rights - but only when the pay is there to be had?

See, Louise is the type of person we’re constantly told is no threat, also experiences misogyny and who we must protect. Don’t push back against those awful predators because innocent Louise will get thrown out with the bathwater. Sacrifice all that women have fought for, so that Louise isn’t upset. Louise is the most vulnerable, so shove up girls.

Louise doesn’t sound particularly deserving, and he’s apparently the best they can offer.

Yes

having worked with an ‘old school transsexual’ and conversed with several on here, I have a fairly clear view of how they view women. The similarities are remarkable and Louise is just more of the same

He was the journalist exposing all of the shenanigans in the Post Office when no other journalist would touch it. I don't think you know much about him really except on this one issue.

Journalistic freedom is important in a democratic society. Nick Wallis is perfectly entitled to interview or write about whatever he wants, I'm not his Mum. Nor am I responsible for how much he earns. I am glad he gave "Louise" a platform I wouldn't seek to criticise him for doing so.

Good luck in your new role as a GC journalist if you are after a job on the Barnsley Beano I'm happy to give you a reference given your obvious talent for inventiveness. 💜

He was A journalist exposing some of it. Not the only one. He also popped up in GC circles at just the right time to accept donations.

I have followed Nick for a long time. I think that he has shown honesty, tenacity and humility in his coverage of the Post Office scandal. He took a professional gamble on a story that might never have paid off. As it is, I don't believe that it has made him a wealthy man, but if it has paid his bills then that is exactly what any worker is due. He asked us, his subscribers, if there was a story to be investigated around the clash between trans 'rights' and women's rights. He had obviously heard snippets but wasn't sure if there was any depth to them. Evidently, enough of us said 'God, yes' because he decided to follow us down the rabbit hole. He will be the first to admit that he came to the story late and he repeatedly credits and platforms all the women who were there years before him, especially the brave women who stood up at the BBC.
You do yourself no credit with your baseless attempts to smear him.

He's a self employed journalist. Journalists pop up where there is a story to be told. That's their job. I'm happy to pay a few quid to him now and then to read his articles and reports.

If he was employed directly by a newspaper, I would still have to pay a few quid to read the newspaper and then the paper would pay him his wages. He's earning a living. Graft not grift. No grift about it. No one is being conned.

If you want to talk about big grifters in all of this where do we start? Private clinics? Dodgy doctors? Jolyn Maughan? All making a fortune whilst selling a lie. Modern day snake oil salesmen.