Is Just Want Privacy Hiding Help from a National Extremist Organization?

Is Just Want Privacy Hiding Help from a National Extremist Organization?

A complaint filed with the PDC claims that anti-trans activists are flouting campaign disclosure rules, innocence be damned.

A complaint filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission claims that Washington’s anti-trans activists are getting outside help. ALEX GARLAND

LGBTQ advocacy group Equal Rights Washington (ERW) has filed a complaint with the state Public Disclosure Commission alleging that Just Want Privacy, the group behind proposed anti-trans ballot measure I-1515, isn’t playing by the state’s campaign disclosure rules.

According to the complaint filed on Tuesday, ERW claims that Just Want Privacy isn’t reporting help it allegedly receives from the Family Research Council, an extremist anti-LGBTQ group based in Washington, D.C. Additionally, ERW says that Just Want Privacy has failed to report in-kind contributions from Family Policy Institute of Washington staff and did not report as much as $20,000 worth of contributions on time.

“[What’s] most concerning to me is that there are outside groups contributing to the campaign that aren’t being accounted for,” Monisha Harrell, board chair of ERW, said. “It doesn’t give us an idea of who’s really funding or backing this initiative, and I think there’s significant concern that many anti-LGBT national organizations are trying to overturn our nondiscrimination laws here in Washington State.”

ERW’s evidence for outside involvement is a status update posted to Just Want Privacy’s Facebook page on June 24. “We’ve been working hard to get the word and [petition] materials to churches across the state,” the post reads. “Even the Family Research Council from Washington DC has lent a helping hand.”

But Just Want Privacy’s in-kind contributions filed to the PDC do not show any help from the Family Research Council.

The ERW complaint also claims that Just Want Privacy’s campaign finance records for the month of May don’t include wages paid to Joseph Backholm, Just Want Privacy campaign chairman and director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and two other Just Want Privacy staffers. The same complaint says that as much as $20,000 in contributions were reported to the PDC a month after they had been deposited.

Backholm told me that he and his team are still reviewing the allegations in the complaint. (He also asked if I would publish an update “when the PDC finds the complaints don’t merit any action.”)

Just Want Privacy has nine more days to obtain the 246,000 signatures it needs to qualify for the November ballot. At this point, Harrell, the chair of ERW, suspects they might get them.

“If I were just to look at just what’s on their PDC I would say it would be difficult,” Harrell said. “But because we believe that there’s outside assistance that’s been working on this we have not been able to fully assess their resources.


Why is a A Male Rapist In a Woman’s Prison?

Not The News in Briefs

Watching footage in the news this week of a male person running into a crowd to swing a punch at a sixty year old woman, you might be forgiven for assuming this was another example of male violence against women, and therefore proof that women sometimes need spaces of their own, in order to stay safe. You’d be wrong in this instance, because in fact this was apparently a trans-identified male doing the punching, so it’s not male violence at all: in fact the sixty year old woman is the one to blame because she wants to go to a feminist meeting about gender. It’s a neat trick: if you make sure women can’t go to feminist meetings about gender they will not be informed enough to criticise an ideology which transforms a fist-swinging male into the victim of a sixty year old woman who wants to go to a…

View original post 1,272 more words

Sat, 5 Nov 2016 WoLF email

Copied text of email

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: WoLF Board <>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 17:21:53 +0000
Subject: Critical WoLF vs. USA lawsuit update, please read!

Good news, WoLFies!

The federal court has stayed the proceedings in the New Mexico
litigation because the Supreme Court is looking at the
Administration’s redefinition of sex to mean “gender identity” in the
case of G[INS: l :INS] oucester v. G.G.

What does that mean for us?

We intend to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the case of
Gloucester v. G.G., where a girl who identifies as a trans boy has
demanded access to the boys’ bathroom. Several boys and their parents
complained that having a girl in the boys’ bathroom violated the boys’
privacy, and the school board passed a policy prohibiting her from the
boys’ bathroom. So she sued. The lower court dismissed her complaint,
but the appellate court reversed it, then the school board asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case and WoLF filed a brief in support.

WoLF’s amicus brief argues that redefining sex to mean “gender
identity” flies in the face of existing civil rights laws enacted to
protect women and girls as a legal category.

This also means our New Mexico litigation is on hold until the Supreme
Court issues a decision in Gloucester, though there is still work to
be done while the Supreme Court deliberates.

CONGRATULATIONS! The fact that our nonprofit is just two and a half
years old and has accomplished a great deal in its short existence is
a testament to how much our radical feminist voices are needed in this
discussion. If you have donated time or money to get WoLF here, please
take a moment to appreciate yourselves and the collective of radical
feminist women that is the Women’s Liberation Front.

We could not have gotten this far without your dedication and support.

We’ve taken the first steps down this monumental path, but the
distance ahead remains long and obstacle-filled. To move forward, we
need to continually push back against opponents who would dismiss our

WoLF’s fundraising committee has been quite successful gathering
resources. I’d like to share with you some public and behind the
scenes work being done to keep us involved with this historic Supreme
Court decision.

In July 2016, our fundraising committee created a GoFundMe through
which we have raised $15,710 in just four months. That is phenomenal.

WoLF Board member Kara Dansky applied for and received a $15,000 grant
from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of conservative lawyers
who are representing states and parents in lawsuits similar to ours
across the country. Also pretty darn phenomenal.

Money has been through private donations and there’s a fundraising
dinner party planned for November 16th in Albuquerque, New Mexico by
WoLF Board member Mary Lou Singleton and the fundraising committee.

Additionally, WoLF opened an account with campaign organizing tool
NationBuilder because it tracks donor contacts in a way the GoFundMe
(which isn’t integrated with an email database) can’t. NationBuilder
takes less of a cut from donations than GoFundMe, making it an even
more attractive online fundraising avenue.

WoLF’s NationBuilder

The only reason WoLF has been able to accomplish so much is because of
your generosity. If you’re excited by WoLF’s involvement in the
Gloucester case, please consider making a donation today through the
NationBuilder link above.

If you’re proud of how we have elevated radical feminism into the
largest debate on gender identity happening in the USA right now,
please invest in our woman-defending organization with as large a
donation as you can spare.

Thank you for being the heart and soul of this vital work.

In Sisterhood,

Samantha Berg
WoLF co-founder

PS: If you prefer not to donate online, please email me directly and I
will help you arrange an alternative way to support our mission.


This email was sent to
why did I get this?
unsubscribe from this list
update subscription preferences
WOLF . P.O. Box 925 . Crescent City, CA 95531 . USA

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp




Sheep in WoLF’s clothing: Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) and its Christian Theocrat Funders


Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) is being funded by right-wing Christian theocrats who have an immense international reach and national influence over USA politics and legislation.

On Nov 5, 2016, members of WoLF were notified that it had solicited and received $15,000 from Alliance Defending Freedom.

This email said:

“WoLF Board member Kara Dansky applied for and received a $15,000 grant from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of conservative lawyers who are representing states and parents in lawsuits similar to ours across the country. Also pretty darn phenomenal.”

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)  is the largest right-wing evangelical Christian nonprofit law firm, with a reported total revenue of $61.9 million for the year ending June 30, 2015, and net assets of $39.9 million. 

ADF was founded by James Dobson and Alan Spears. Dobson is the founder of Focus on the Family, an anti-feministanti-gay and lesbian organization with $139 million in revenue. Alan Spears is “a former Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan who wrote The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.

Some of ADF’s biggest funders have been:

  • Betsy DeVos, current secretary of education,
  • her brother Erik Prince of Blackwater, the billionaire private mercenary who got away with murder and was accused by his former employees of “wanting to start a religious crusade against Muslims” and who is allegedly advising Trump “on matters related to intelligence and defense” and
  • Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO, billionaire David GreenHobby Lobby is the company that won the Supreme Court ruling that Hobby Lobby could refuse to pay for women employees’ birth control on the grounds that women having control over their reproduction violated the religious beliefs “of the corporation” (of Mr. Green).

ADF also is the law firm which has been the driving force behind recent Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. ADF advised former Indiana governor and current Vice President Mike Pence’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This bill would have allowed individuals and businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians on the grounds of “religious rights”.

ADF is also now an international organization with UN status, and is expanding into other countries, notably Latin America and Eastern Europe, to fight against legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage.

As Gillian Kane writes:

Today, ADF is one of the largest conservative legal organizations in the United States, with a budget dwarfing those of sister groups like the Becket Fund and Liberty Counsel. Indeed, one might argue that it is chiefly responsible for the rightward jurisprudential shift on religion in the public sphere. ADF engages the question of religious freedom broadly. They are best known for litigating on the role of religion in public life, a category encompassing abortion, LGBTQ rights, freedom of expression—including the right to religious free speech in public schools—homeschooling, parental rights, and family, among other issues.

They claim to have been active on six continents and across at least 41 countries, where they prosecute their anti-gay, (straight) fathers’ rights and anti-abortion agenda, sometimes successfully blocking human rights protections for lesbians and gay men in other countries¹.

We cannot afford to deny that ADF’s activities detrimentally affect women around the world given this group’s power and reach, as Kane describes:

ADF’s ambition is boundless; they work not only in national courts, but are also vigorously inserting themselves in regional courts and at the United Nations. In 2010, ADF launched their Global Initiative, ramping up the “international fight for religious liberty for Christians and establishing a larger ADF footprint to accomplish this mission.” That same year, ADF was granted United Nations ECOSOC special consultative status. This status is significant because it gives them virtually unfettered access to U.N. missions during key convention and treaty-drafting meetings. They advocate face-to-face with delegates and help them develop rights-limiting language for inclusion in U.N. documents.

In 2012, ADF opened their first international office in Vienna, Austria, which enabled them to easily toggle between the various European courts, including the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They have also inserted themselves at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna, the European Parliament in Brussels, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In all these regional bodies they have focused their efforts on issues like abortion, euthanasia, registration of churches, and homeschooling, wielding their influence across countries such as Sweden, Turkey, Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

Knowingly or unknowingly, WoLF has basically solicited and accepted funding from the ideological wing of the Trump administration. That is pretty darn phenomenal, indeed.

ADF is the largest right-wing evangelical²  law firm because they took over all their competition and they have a reputation of playing hard with their own kind. ADF requires loyalty pledges from those who work with them. Was WoLF required to sign a loyalty pledge? Who the fuck knows – and if they had, they would be required to lie about it.

WoLF’s involvement with ADF is not merely a concern to feminists in the USA, but is also a concern to feminists outside the USA, as WoLF has ambitions to insert itself in international women’s issues and events, and plans to attend the 61st session of the Commission on the Status of Women.

Opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage had been 
ADF’s biggest cash cow

“Between July 2002 and June 2003, ADF raised an impressive $15.5 million. In November of 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples were guaranteed the freedom to marry. ADF denounced the “extremely disturbing” images of “homosexual couples receiving pseudo-‘marriages’” — and raised $17.7 million$21.6 million$25.3 million, and then $30.6 million in the years that followed.”

Concerned homophobes were solicited by ADF to encouraged donate $$$$$$$$ to “defend marriage”. Well, that cash cow died. However, there is a new culture war to exploit now and boy, is it a doozy: ADF can now exploit women’s reasonable fears of overly broad gender-identity laws that allow any man to self-identify into women-only spaces and solicit funds in the name of “defending women”.

What ADF really needs to attract the cash is some friendly feminist white faces to sell opposing LGBT rights to the US public as “defending women’s rights”. Overly-broad gender-identity ‘protections’ that allow people to self-identify into opposite-sex facilities have been hog-tied to civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. It’s been absolutely disastrous, as civil rights for gays and lesbians in the US are not provided at the federal level; they are state- or locally based, and civil rights bills have been defeated due to the inclusion of these overly broad ‘protections’. But what a boon for political forces who wish to roll back civil rights for gays and lesbians! Now they can exploit the public’s reasonable objections to these overly broad laws in order to defeat civil rights ordinances that would prevent gays and lesbians from being fired. Trans people are already covered under Federal law; gays and lesbians are not.

It’s an awful situation; the civil rights of gays and lesbians should not be tied to the right of any man to self-ID into female-only spaces. One would think that if WoLF wanted to “reach across the aisle” and work with conservatives, reaching out to conservative gays and lesbians who are in favor of civil rights for gays and lesbians, but opposed to overly broad gender-identity protections, would be the logical thing to do. Nah, WoLF doesn’t do that. WoLF decides to go knocking at the door of ADF, the law firm which wants homosexuality to be a criminal offense again.

According to one former Board member, the decision to take money from ADF was done out of desperation following WoLF’s decision to pursue a lawsuit contesting the Obama administration’s executive order that transgender students be allowed to use locker rooms and bathrooms, and to play on sports teams, according to their ‘gender identity’ instead of sex. The lawsuit (which is now a moot case and waste of money since Trump tossed out the Obama administration’s executive order) turned out to be more expensive than WoLF expected. Now WoLF owed lawyer David Bookbinder, (who is also the husband of a WoLF member, hmmmm) far more money than they could raise. It was to be a one-time thing and something which WoLF intended to keep secret, this former board member alleges.

At any rate, WoLF seeking money from anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian right-wing evangelical Christians wasn’t a one-time thing.  On January 12, 2017 board meeting notes informed members that:

“The board voted unanimously to engage Imperial Independent Media to fundraise for WoLF on a 20% commission basis, and to authorize Natasha to enter into a contract for these services on behalf of WoLF.”

Imperial Independent Media is one man, Zachary Freeman: 

Zachary Freeman

Managing Partner at IIM, LLC

Greater Seattle Area

Public Relations and Communications

  1. Imperial Independent Media
  1. Family Policy Institute of Washington,
  2. Alaska Family Council,
  3. The Family Action Council of Tennessee
  1. Liberty University
  1. Company Website

Freeman is a right-wing evangelical Christian who graduated from Jerry Falwell’s right- wing evangelical Christian university and has pretty much only worked for Focus on the Family-affiliated groups that work to criminalize abortion and deny civil rights to gays and lesbians.

Even more disturbing was Freeman’s recent involvement in an attempt to release the names of scientists and lab workers who utilize fetal tissue in their research to an anti-abortion group.

“A group of researchers and employees affiliated with the University of Washington’s Birth Defects Research Center has filed a federal class-action lawsuit and is seeking an injunction to prevent the release of its names to anti-abortion activists through a public-disclosure request.

The employees say they fear harassment, backlash and violence if their names and other identifying information — including some home addresses and telephone numbers — are turned over to the California-based Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group whose founder, David Daleiden, is responsible for the release of controversial “sting” videos about fetal-tissue experimentation and Planned Parenthood that resulted in a national furore last year.

Daleiden and Zachary Freeman, the communications director for the anti-abortion Family Policy Institute of Washington, are named as defendants in the lawsuit since they are seeking the release of the records through the Washington Public Records Act. The UW is named as a defendant as the agency preparing to release the information.”³

Such tactics in the past by anti-abortion activists have resulted in harassment, bomb threats, bombings, and murder.  This is the man who WoLF wants to enter into a mutually beneficial fundraising contract with. So not only is WoLF willing to solicit and accept money from anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian right-wing evangelical Christians, but it is also willing to use itself to fund these people.

Is Freeman going to have access to WoLF’s membership list for fund-raising purposes and have an international list of names, emails, addresses, phone numbers of women who think they are joining a  feminist organization? Who knows, but I imagine that if he and his fellow right-wing evangelical Christian cohorts wanted access to it, it would be easy to obtain.  Getting a membership list wouldn’t be hard for people who have come to power by engaging in stealth politics for the last 30 years. These are the same people who took over the Republican Party in the 90’s by using stealth tactics.

WoLF has already proved to be neither feminist, strategic or smart.  I mean, when WoLF’s members are rightfully freaking the fuck out, and publicly discussing its decision to take money from and fund right-wing evangelical Christians (who want to imprison women for miscarriages and make it legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians), WoLF considers that to constitute a “leak” and a “security breach”. So I find it hard to believe that that they have any actual security regarding sensitive information like member’s names, emails, addresses or phone numbers.

A former board member of WoLF alleges that she resigned after being pressured by a current board member to go along with WoLF’s proposal to enter into a fundraising contract with a “male right-wing fundraiser” she called “Zack”. This man “Zack” she alleges, “was willing to do this paid work if WoLF agreed to stop advocating for abortion rights”. It would seem that someone like Mr. Freeman whose professional life has involved working to make abortion illegal would be compromising his professional and personal integrity by agreeing to enter into a mutually beneficial fundraising contract with WoLF. One would assume that a radical feminist group would advocate for abortion rights. Perhaps the only one here with their integrity intact is Mr. Freeman.

There are women who are former Board members who object to what WoLF has done and who could come forward and speak out, but they are afraid of hurting the organization. I think they should be afraid of WoLF’s success.

Who is going to fund WoLF now that it has publicly aligned itself with the likes of Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom and Mr. Zachary Freeman, and other right-wing organizations? WoLF has found its base and it’s not one that has any interest in women’s liberation. However, it is one with very deep pockets that can easily fund a “radical feminist” group to do things that advance the Trump administration’s political agenda.

The Trump administration’s ideological base IS right-wing evangelical Christians; 81% of them voted for Trump because Mike Pence is one of them.

“Oh that’s crazy, you crazy lady;  what would right-wing evangelicals want with a radical feminist group?” Well, ADF already has invested money in WoLF and I’m sure it’s ADF who recommended WoLF hooking up with Zachary Freeman, so they see something possible in that relationship. Large political organizations with very set political agendas don’t go around giving non-profits thousands of dollars just to feel good; they donate money because they want results. For instance, they feel that your organization’s work aligns with their political goals, or they see you as a threat and want to co-opt or neutralize your organization. For Pete’s sake, on ADF’s grant application webpage it states:

“We offer a partnership that goes beyond monetary support. We invest together and offer consultation and legal expertise when you request it.”

Just put on your thinking cap for a few minutes and think “what would I do with a “radical” feminist group if I were a Christian theocrat who wanted to roll back the rights of women, gays and lesbians and minorities?”


  • Use radical feminists to oppose civil rights ordinances for gays and lesbians, on the grounds that such ordinances are tied to overly broad gender identity laws and are a threat to women’s safety, would work like a charm. It would be much more effective than using the likes of Michele Duggar, as one could raise money via WoLF from women who would never donate money to an anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian group but will donate to WoLF, unaware that someone like ADF is getting a cut for providing media connections and legal support.
  • It would be really easy to use WoLF by funding them in agitating for Planned Parenthood to be defunded on the grounds that Planned Parenthood is providing cross-sex hormones on an informed consent basis. Defunding Planned Parenthood is one of ADF’s and Mike Pence’s goals.
  • Maybe use WoLF to sponsor anti-Sharia laws that serve only to stir up Islamophobia, or laws that serve only to harass Muslim citizens, by giving Child Protection Services or ICE the right to remove any child that may be at risk of being subjected to FGM .

WoLF has pretty much set itself up to be the Femen of the Trump administration: a group of “radical feminists” who are funded by anti-feminist, anti-gay and -lesbian, anti-Muslim racists. Good lard, why are any former members standing by WoLF? WoLF has utterly betrayed its membership and women in general; it is not owed any loyalty.

¹ As this section from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) explains.

² Christian Theocrats, these people

³ Mike Carter at The Seattle Times

Further suggested reading

via Sheep in WoLF’s clothing: Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) and their Christian Theocrat Funders — things I’ve read or intend to


Speakers’ Corner and the inability of transgender activists and Stonewall to condemn male violence


Published on Sep 16, 2017

A woman was assaulted by three or four men at a protest of a feminist event on 13 September 2017. This assault has been celebrated by transgender activists who have intentionally sought to silence criticism of this, indeed instead of recognising this a problem there has been incitement to further violence.
Please do not contact and especially do not harass anyone mentioned in this video, which is a criticism of words and actions of others and it’s not my intention to lead to bullying. Condoning violence is wrong and silencing our organisations so they don’t speak out against it propagates cultural violence.
This cannot continue. We need to make sure such violence does not happen again. This is a commentary on a news incident, and is not for shock or entertainment. Stand against male violence against women.
Ah. I duplicated a section. Sorry about that.

This Is An All-Out Political War: The Gender Recognition Act and Beyond

This is from the ‘What isnthe meaning of gender? The GRA and beyond’ talk given by Julia Long and myself in central London on 13 September 2017. The presentation I gave followed the talk Julia gave on the power of naming. Our time was cut short because the venue was concerned about the noisy protest outside. Earlier activists had physically assaulted a woman at the event assembled point. The first part of my presentation would have covered the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the government’s proposed changes, particularly the move to self-identification which a lot of transsexuals of all political persuasion are unhappy with. I pick up talking about the Pink News coverage of double-rapist Martin Ponting. 

On Friday 8 September Pink News published a piece titled:

  • ‘The Mail’s coverage of a transgender rapist is predictably horrifying’

What was horrifying? Here’s the Mail’s coverage in a nutshell:

  • Transgender rapist who was moved to women-only jail despite still having a penis is segregated after ‘making unwanted sexual advances on female inmates’
  • Martin Ponting, 50, a father-of-three, became Jessica Winfield in jail after being sentenced to life imprisonment in 1995.
  • She was moved in March this year from male-only HMP Whitemoor, in Cambridgeshire, to HMP Bronzefield in Surrey – Europe’s largest female prison
  • It emerged she was segregated over reports of unwanted advances on inmates

Pink News criticised The Mail’s coverage because:

  • What the Mail Online did was mention her deadname, call her “a father,” and implied that her actions were down to the fact she has a penis.

It explains:

  • Trans activists raised issues with the piece, suggesting it was attempting to link the convicted prisoner’s crimes to their gender identity;
  • having a penis isn’t what makes people attempt sexual assault.
  • In an example of doublethink that surely makes George Orwell spin in his grave, the piece continues:
  • It is prison authorities’ job to prevent convicts from repeating their crimes inside the prison, so it’s good they are apparently taking steps to do so.
  • The Mail called Winfield by her deadname, writing: “Martin Ponting, 50, a father-of-three, became Jessica Winfield in jail”.
  • Mermaids UK, a transgender support charity, states that “discrimination still occurs in many forms, such as … refusing to stop using a person’s birth name (also known as deadnaming).”
  • There is no reason for the Mail to use Winfield’s deadname;.
  • Once more for emphasis: Winfield is a convicted rapist.
  • Her being trans has nothing to do with that.

It should be clear to everyone that Pink News is siding with a double rapist over women. 
Attributed to George Orwell is the quote:

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history”

which is based on the argument in ‘1984’. During the Second World War Orwell was charged with simplifying the English language, this lead him to the realisation that robbing people of language robs them of the ability to describe their lives.
In his 1946 essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, he wrote political language:

“is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

This ‘newspeak’ is exactly what Pink News are doing and what the government is mandating.

We are being prevented from identifying this man as a man, and as the man he is.

The ideological ‘hate crimes’ of ‘misgendering’ and ‘deadnaming’ are elevated above

  • concern for the women raped by this man
  • the women forced to share a prison with him, and
  • above any right we may have to be able to tell the truth.

Where does this leave us, when we as individuals are compelled by an act of parliament to set aside reality by legal threat? Are we, as subjects in a democratic nation, obliged to submit to legislation that compels us to think in a particular way? How is this not a violation of our most basic of freedom to be able to think for ourselves? Does this not mandate political dissent out of existence?

It is now a revolutionary act of political disobedience to refer to a transgender male as anything other than ‘she’ or ‘her’. 

These views are the mainstream, and represent a staggering failure of the left to prioritise material reality over the personal feelings of a small group of individuals.

Language is being changed so that:

  • Chestfeeding is used instead of breastfeeding;
  • Fathers give birth to children; and
  • Use of the term ‘feminine hygiene products’ is discriminatory and exclusionary.

Ideas of female homosexuality are being obliterated by what will make today’s culture the laughing stock of the cultures that succeed us: the ridiculous notion of the ‘lesbian with a female penis’.

The political right is capitalising on this; not only have the Conservative government scored points over the left by introducing equal marriage, which widens the reach of one of the most conservative social institutions, the ‘Transgender Equality Report’ has delivered what I called:

“…the reinforcement of politically conservative ideas under the disguise of socially progressive modernisation… reducing what it means to be a woman to a collection of limiting stereotypes, and failing entirely to interrogate the limiting stereotypes of manhood. This… report represents antiquated and reactionary conservatism disguised in the emperor’s new clothes of fairness and equality.”

This failure within the left has been allowed to happen out of compassion for what we have been told is a vulnerable minority. We have sleep-walked into the situation where the idea of what it means to be either female or homosexual are subjected to an all-out ideological assault.


Read the rest of essay here