The day after a Commons debate to protect women from sexual harassment at Westminster, 50 people met in a Commons Committee room on October 31st with the same object: to protect women, in this case by resisting Government proposals announced in the summer by Justine Greening to allow people to self-identify as a different gender. These go back to the recommendations in the 2015 report by the Women and Equalities Committee, chaired by Maria Miller.

David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth,who has been alarmed by these proposals, had convened the meeting.  He was to read out the list of transgender activist groups who’d provided the bulk of evidence to Ms Miller’s committee. Yet no representations had been heard from the other side of the argument, he said. Ms Miller had been quoted as saying that people with such views were bigoted and their opinions had no validity.

Given the difficulty of balancing women’s rights with transgender rights, it was perhaps not surprising that his meeting was so well attended – not just by MPs from both sides of the House, but by women’s groups and journalists from the leading papers; or that two thirds of those present were women.

Caroline Flint MP, a Labour minister from 2005 to 2009, spoke of the emerging environment of competing rights in which women were on the losing end. Miranda Yardley, herself a transsexual, pointed out: ‘The endowment of rights to males as females compromises the privacy of females . . . and particularly will affect those women who are economically disadvantaged or victims of male violence.’

They were not alone in their concerns. Women’s group representatives described the chilling effect of trans-activism on women’s organisations who cannot publicise meetings for fear of attack. Exemptions under the Equality Act, by which single-sex spaces could be free from those with a legally recognised gender reassignment, were not working and were often not invoked due to intimidation; nor could they afford to defend a legal challenge to such exemptions. Women who’d been subject to male sexual violence needed women-only spaces – whether in therapeutic groups, swimming pools or department store changing rooms, and when receiving certain health services, they said. They also expressed  concern for female prisoners unprotected from transgendered men convicted of sexual offences against women in the same accommodation; and finally that official government guidance and NHS guidelines had all been written by transgender activist organisations.

The meeting focussed on contradictory and negative consequences of the government’s proposals which included:

The issue of women’s sports if dominated by transgendered men. Why would ‘natal’ women bother to take part? The physical advantage that men have is not changed by medical treatment – ‘equality is at the expense of equity’, said Miranda Yardley.

The risk to woman of transgenderism being used as a cover for male violence against women; the risk of men posing as women to gain access to children. Claims of gender dysphoria were already used as mitigation in court for sexual offences against children, it was reported.


The integrity of women’s data being compromised when women’s statistics refer both to ‘natal’ women and men transgendered as women; wit regard to crime statistics too, as some crimes reported as by women were actually by transgendered men.

Then there was the issue of the imposition of transgender orthodoxy on children – now taught a new rigid, anti-science belief system presented to them as fact. Yet cross-sex hormones cannot create the puberty of the opposite sex, Stephanie Davies-Arai explained, but they do bring a risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, diabetes and cancers.

Worries were expressed too, about ‘non-evidence-based practice to treat a non-evidence-based diagnosis of being a girl trapped in a boy’s body and vice versa of which this generation of children are the guinea pigs’. ‘All published research on “gender dysphoria”,’ Stephanie Davies-Arai continued, ‘shows that 80 per cent will naturally come to be happy as the sex they were born. Affirming a child’s “gender identity” can be seen as gay conversion therapy by another name.’ Recognition of biological facts is not bigotry, she concluded.

There was also the issue of teenage girls having male classmates using their toilets and changing rooms. Wouldn’t this teach them that their boundaries could be violated and their consent was unimportant? Wouldn’t they learn that they are not always allowed to say ‘no’? This, one woman said, is grooming. Furthermore, voyeurism and indecent exposure would cease to be crimes once a man can claim to be a woman, while normal child protection protocols effectively become unlawful.

Yet the feelings of offence reported by a minority, and which cannot be contradicted, already regularly override other evidence in public argument.

If Justine Greening’s proposals become law, gender identity will depend on a piece of paper, not on the body people are born with.  It is an ancient heresy: gnosticism. Everyone agreed it must be resisted at all cost.


  1. I have written to my own MP three times giving evidence of why transgenderism is both anti-children and misogynist. I am not sure he’s ever bothered to look at the evidence at all. The ACP calls the teaching of transgenderism “institutionalised child abuse”. At last this article shows I am not alone thinking this Parliament no longer represents decent British people.

    • He’s actually right, though the reasons why are quite obscure.

      If it helps, even though there was a wild diversity (pun most definitely intended) of Gnostic sects and ideologies through the Centuries, one thing they all had in common was the notion that the Mind was intrinsically superior to the Body, to the extent that the latter should be subjected to the former.

      This is the same foundational Error in philosophy that the pro-transgender lobby is committing, in the form described by Dr Sugden as : “a new rigid, anti-science belief system presented to them as fact“.

      Or, as the Catholic Encyclopedia has it, concerning the Gnostic conception of humanity :

      The Gnostic Anthrôpos, therefore, or Adamas, as it is sometimes called, is a cosmogonic element, pure mind as distinct from matter, mind conceived hypostatically as emanating from God and not yet darkened by contact with matter. This mind is considered as the reason of humanity, or humanity itself, as a personified idea, a category without corporeality, the human reason conceived as the World-Soul.

      • Thank you for your erudition, though I still don’t see why the writer brought it into the article. I wonder if he has a bee in his bonnet about gnosticism?

      • Is the body not simply a container for the soul’s temporary sojourn in this world?
        The Soul (or cognisant mind) is surely superior to the body.

        • You confuse the Soul with the Mind.

          Otherwise — Is the body not simply a container for the soul’s temporary sojourn in this world?

          No, We are created as we are, not into some deeply flawed gnostic dichotomy.

          • Is gnostic your new buzzword ? LOL

            Except for the ‘created’ which requires a ‘creator’ I would agree. The body, mind and soul (which I would term consciousness or spirit) are inseparable when defining man.

      • I’ve always thought of the new gender ideology as an example of nominalism (as opposed to realism). Nominalism being the philosophy that the words we use have no necessary connection with their referents whereas philosophical realism states that words such as ‘male’ and ‘female’ do correspond to an objective reality. This conflict goes back to medieval philosophical disputes and in postmodern times nominalism has won.

        • I don’t think that’s right — both nominalism and idealism accepted, after Socrates, that words have no necessary connection with their referends. It’s a truism of both classical and modern Grammar, and hardly anything contentious.

          You’re referring perhaps though to the Quarrel of the Universals, which was about whether truth is located in material things or in their transcendence, whether truth is inductionist or emanatist. Whether truth is in the things themselves, or in our intellective understanding of them.

          But modern linguistics has demonstrated that truth, insofar as it exists in human thought, is a property of speech, or “a certain pertinenence” therein, as one of my old professors put it — rather ironically validating the vocalist position of the sophists that Aristotle and Plato both condemned ; although the semantic triangle (Signifier, Signified, Referend) actually replicates the ternary structure of vocalism, idealism, nominalism in the immediate pre-Socratic Greek philosophy.

          So no, I don’t think nominalism has “won”, but rather it’s been confined to the material sciences and certain particular aspects of (natural) philosophy — which are not the be-all and end-all of philosophy, despite the pretensions of certain atheists’ claims for the metaphysics of their scientism.

          • Thanks for this. I’m not a professional philosopher (I only studied political philosophy at university level). What I had in mind was Duns Scotus’ argument which I’ve seen described as nominalism. I was also thinking of C S Lewis’s transcendent understanding of objective male and female. This can be found in ‘Perelandra’ (p 253f, HarperCollins, 2005):

            “… what Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender. Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine …Ransom has cured me of believing this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still far less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse.

            Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless … the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine.”

  2. So-called Conservatives are eager to learn more about getting their socks mixing up?
    Somehow I don’t think so.

  3. When I wrote to Justine Greening concerning this appalling bill, I received a letter back telling me how much the government is concerned that Trans people should be “happy”.
    What they should be doing is ensure that the rest 99.9%, are not made very unhappy with effects of this on society.
    I can only come to the conclusion that Manipulation is taking place in the higher escheleons of society to destroy our culture and turn us into zombies they can control. No one will know real from false. How do I know what you are in your mind? If we disassociate ourselves from reality we are really in trouble.

    • Real women. SJW codes can be hard for people who speak normal English to really follow, since they often insist on inventing a new language to go alongside their own peculiar understanding of objective reality.

  4. Is there a way by which I can sen this article to my MP? I am I am afraid rather illiterate with regards to modern technologies so forgive me if this should seem obvious and simple.

    • The old fashioned way: Print the page out (try “Ctrl P”), then post it with your covering letter. This may have a higher chance of being read since it will arrive in a conveniently readable format. And I suspect that most of us still have a preference for reading from paper. I’ve always had written replies from my MP to my written letters.
      The modern way: Either cut and paste the text into an email after your foreword or, even more compact, cut and paste the link from the address bar above (www.conservativewoman etc…) into your email.
      If you know your MP’s name a quick Google should find his parliamentary email.
      Best of luck.

    • If you’re on a mac: click the ‘reader view’ in the left hand of the browser bar – it removes all the adverts and comments, and displays in a nice, easy-to-read format. Then click on ‘file’; ‘share’; ’email’.

  5. Very true. But of course most of “tricks” listed have been learned from the women’s lobby. For years the techniques of manipulation, emotional appeals, shaming, fake evidence and soundbites and indeed getting Women’s lobby groups to write the “guidance” have become part of the fabric of Parliament. It should be no surprise that the “trans” lobby has learned well. And of course this “alliance” rehashes the women’s lobby. I note no one is remotely interested in women transitioning to men and there is a panoply of reasons males are inherently “toxic” even if they wear a frock.
    Fools fools, years of chucking men and boys under a bus each time women claim they are “toxic” and a danger, you are reaping what you have sown! And what is still sown in this alliance. Of course Trans is nonsense, but frankly I have no sympathy if the augment is that opposing it is all about how evil males are!

  6. Shameful gender purity fascist attempt to shift blame for sexual harassment and rape from cis males like yourself to a marginalised minority group of women who happen to be trans. Don’t kid yourselves: You are just like the extremist conspiracy theorists who demonise and scapegoat Jews and immigrants. Forcing trans women to use men’s loos puts us at increased risk of sexual harassment, rape and other forms of gender based violence. Why don’t you go and take up US citizenship to be with your idol Trump as I don’t want traitors like you in my country!

    • There is no such thing as gender- it was made up by Californian hippies. There are only 2 sexes. Male and female. No amount of wishing will change that.

    • Good jolly old intolerant & sexist hate speech, eh, Katie ?

      Shall I report you to Constable PC of the Thought Police for heterophobia ?

    • Tongue in cheek ironic humour – I like it. You mimic the style of the crazed activist so well – a worthy successor to Craig Brown. Thanks for the laughs.

    • But these are women who were born men, but more in touch with their feminise side. Isn’t that what Feminists want? As for any risk of sexual harrasment, don’t you think its just as likely for men from women who have transgendered into men? Or is it sexist to look at both sides equally?

      • The truth of the matter is that homosexuals (of whatever tedious capital letter “variety”) are statistically far more likely to engage in sexual harrasments and assaults than straights are.

        But researchers who point out this fact are almost instantly vilified and censored.

          • Just one example :


            Homosexual activist groups themselves have admitted that less than three percent of Americans are homosexual or bisexual.

            FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.

        • NOw that’s funny. Straight males began to sexually assault and harass me starting at the age of nine, and the pigshit continued until my early 30’s. I’m a lesbian and spent lot’s of time in the LGBT movement and was never once harassed by a gay person. Get a clue!

      • No, that’s not at all what feminists want. We want people not to have to conform to gender stereotypes, we don’t think that it changes their sex if they don’t. A man can like things considered ‘feminine’, he’s still a man. Indeed most men do like/do some such things, because people aren’t just simplistic 2D gender stereotypes – any bloke who has ever gone ‘awww’ at a cute kitten video, worn a pink shirt, cared about a romance plot in a novel, looked after his own kids…

        Transmen are still women and were raised as such, they’re not as likely to commit sexual harassment – it’s statistics not sexism.

    • The issue is NOT a raging fear of sexual assaults by trans people (though that risk certainly does exist.) It is that self-ID provides an easy, legal and protected avenue for sex offenders to access women & girls in vulnerable situations.

      The flasher exposing his penis to schoolgirls in the park is a criminal. The very same exhibitionist claiming to believe he’s a woman is not only free to do his creepy thing; he can do it to the girls while they are naked – and they will be the ones committing a crime if they protest!

      It seems you didn’t bother to read the article.

  7. Well, that’s identity politics. Some victims are always more equal. No government paper (outside the military) should ever identify sex, color, or any other identifying personal characteristic. Only objective information.

    • When the Police ask the public to help look out for a white male in their 30s …. what you see is that “sex” DOES matter.
      The Police cannot ask the public to help look out for a white X in their 30s ….. can they?

      • Sure they can, and do. Now your point would be valid if you had said a black man, or an Islamist, or a woman.

        What you mostly get these days is an average sized man. Might as well not bother.

      • Canadian serial killer (of women) Donna Perry escaped arrest for over 20 years, in part because the DNA evidence was male. If our legal system renders biology irrelevant, it makes the police’s job – and many, many others – much more difficult.

        You touch on another interesting point: making sex a matter of personal choice must inevitably lead to the same for skin colour. (Gender & race are both social constructs, tied to observable genetics.) Good luck to anyone insisting they’ve changed sex or colour, but I’m never going to support a legislative move that literally orders me to deny the evidence of my own eyes.

  8. Isn’t it great when you see the left suffering from cognitive dissonance and eating itself.
    If this comes about, every man in the country should immediately go and register as a Woman. Equality problem solved!

  9. More evidence, if any were needed, that the current government is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

  10. Could it be that some are starting to notice that the king actually has no clothes? At least they seem to be acknowledging the blindingly obvious truth that he’s not the queen just because he says he is. Feminism meets Transgender is likely to be more bloody than Alien vs. Predator, though I doubt it’ll out on DVD just yet.

    • This has actually been going on for years in the feminist movement, though seems to be starting to come to public attention more now. We might not get a DVD, but I do hope feminists who’ve done the work bringing this to light will get the credit they’ve earned!

  11. If Maria Miller self-identifies as Ms Miller, is she open to hear any ethical objection to folk self-identifying on other issues, since Ms is a basic undermining of marriage as the basis for societal identity?

Comments are closed.