Shite said Fred

I saw your article today, Freddie. I felt compelled to respond. The constant use of hyperbole and one-sided appeals to emotion are getting wearing.

For those unaware of McConnell, a brief run down:

Freddie McConnell is a trans man. He made headlines previously after having a child. This was covered in the documentary Seahorse -

Very soon after legally changing gender / sex, McConnell had a round of IVF using donor sperm. 

Freddie complained about media intrusion, although was simultaneously filming with the documentary crew - even during the labour. 

Having delivered, McConnell went to register the birth and then had to deal with the shock and trauma of finding the end point of the legal fictions afforded to trans people. The registrar couldn't record Freddie as the father, and Freddie kicked off. He was now a man, after all.

This led to court, unsuccessfully. 

Freddie believes that a changed birth certificate is not sufficient legal fiction, and should extend to the child's documentation. The child is McConnell's and thus must also have fictitious statements on their birth certificate.

This is important - for consistency; to make sure Freddie is never outed (imagine, being a recognisable face, and known for being a trans man and birthing parent!) and, obviously, so the child's existence can affirm McConnell's identity. 

More can be found here.

So, back to the article. 

Apparently, the left-wing media is reliable in calling out the anti trans bullshit (by relentlessly downplaying or ignoring relevant information, pushing myths, ramping up the hostility against women etc - all sterling stuff) except for this situation with Stonewall now - which is all so silly, and 'freelance journalist' McConnell will lead us through why they, essentially, are being persecuted.

"I refer to the government’s assault on the freedoms and safety of its transgender citizens" says McConnell, straight faced and totally sans-sanctimonious moustache twirling.

"Some loud lefties, under the guise of “gender-critical feminism”, are in lockstep with a government that they would otherwise denounce. The successors to what was known as “trans-exclusionary radical feminism” now agree with Tory ministers that trans people should not have equal rights and, in fact, have too many already"

There's been no assault on trans people's rights, you just didn't get self ID through the door. Is that an assault? Is allowing anyone who fancies it to opt into the protected groups of women or trans people ok? Not allowing mass, uncontrolled appropriation of the rights of protected characteristics is an 'assault'?

Not sure what McConnell hopes to achieve from scare quotes on 'gender-critical feminism', all it says to me is you would rather use a slur but - my God the oppression - know it undermines the injured-yet-inspiring brand, when the normies see it, anyway. And as for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", matey, you are not excluded from it, despite being trans! This pisses you off, of course - but it's pissing you off because you're included, not excluded.

Radical feminism is a practice, an analytical lens. It does not see gender as a manifest thing but a societal constraint, and most people don't believe a pseudo-soul - a self reported and unobservable essence - overrides biological sex. It's really on you that you point blank refuse to acknowledge this. It is not an attack on trans people, it's a disagreement on reality (we, the terven, are the sane ones, Freddie) and the origins and basis of our oppression. You're the intolerant, uneducated and exclusionary one here. Prove otherwise or continue to look the bigot.

Feminists aren't in lockstep with the government, for the love of God. Feminists have been campaigning, at considerable personal and professional cost (and threat of vexatious complaint and prosecution) to have their concerns recognised and there's plenty of disapproval, dismay and anger at the government from us. What has happened is finally a little bit of light has cracked through this murky, bullshit abyss, and our concerns have been acknowledged. Fuck the fluffy, complicit McLeft for letting this slide, and the totalitarian blinkers that tell you even stopped clocks cannot ever, even accidentally, be 'right' or you're a fash, innit.

What we don't want is for other protected groups to lose their rights, and you can squeal 'dogwhistle!' all day long - we're past caring.

Stonewall misled employers with their own twist on the implementation of the Equality Act. They have lied about not campaigning for the removal of exemption for transwomen in same sex spaces, they cooked and served a fallacious report into women's refuges. They refused to enter into dialogue to lower the toxicity of the debate. This really is on your side, mate.

McConnell then goes on to describe what I think we could call virtue signalling, although I'm guessing this prose is beneath them and whatever brocialist political alliance they proudly hold. The use of Pride hashtags and, apparently, cheap platitudes about respecting trans people are a ruse used by the baddies that convince casual observers, but are especially telling when combined with 'denying trans women's identities' (link to some unmitigated shite from TransActual)

Yes, Pride is a vacuous, commercial performance now. No, we are unable to deny anyone their identity. Your identity is your castle, innit? Something for you alone to stand atop with strapping, manly thighs, that can only be defined by you? Also, here you are invalidating our identities of being women - adult human females. Is that escaping you?

It's apparently a 'peculiarly British anti-trans moral panic' that ails us. A 'rehash of the anti-gay moral panic of the 1980s'. The knackered old tropes are cattle-prodded into action, barely managing to stand but braying along and making us all feel shit. 

This is being done by Freddie and Freddie's comrades. No one else.

'Moral panic' is a cheeky way to diminish the issues and paint us as archetypal prudes with intrusive, long, warty noses. It's an attempt to cast us as Mary Whitehouse types, or Victorians flustered at the sight of too much table leg. Is the fact morality is possibly somewhere involved in, say, the protection of children, a way to dissuade people from safeguarding policies? I suspect the moral panic actually stems from the 'think of the (trans) children!' suicide taunting; the hyperbole and lies over trans murder rates; the censorious, po-faced no-platforming. The supercillious, dishonest and hair-trigger sensibilities of trans activism. It has to gain some authority from somewhere other than facts, of course, and moral authority is their first port of call. As long as they accuse us (DARVO) all will be well. To the 'casual observer'.

Undated portrait of Freddie's argument as a child 

The comparison to fears over gays and lesbians in toilets is another old canard.
Those who claimed they posed a risk to others in toilets and changing rooms were ignorant and homophobic. They meant 'these people have already breached one social norm - to do with S-E-X - you can't trust them!'

Saying males commit the vast majority of sex crimes and crimes against the person ain't quite the analogy to homophobic hysteria you think it is. As you said earlier about people being fooled by platitudes, I suspect these poor, limping, bovine tropes are also reaching the end of the line. And we all know what would be the kindest thing...

Now we move onto the witch hunt, which sounds exciting (and weird,since it is the terven with the long, intrusive warty noses); "After the government reneged on Gender Recognition Act reform" (no to self ID, reducing charge of birth certificate doctoring to a fiver) and "abandoned work on its LGBT action plan" it went after the big daddy, Stonewall. Those bastards. Freddie reckons Simon Parrish is the fire starter in the latest act of political arson. Writing in his capacity as one of the founders of Stonewall, he said it should stick to the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexual people. Trans rights aren't really related to sexual attraction. And he's right.
Interesting to note that gay rights hero Simon Fanshawe has said much the same.  

McConnell then says that "despite loud voices misguidedly pitting women against trans people, a large majority of Brits maintain positive views of trans people." - (Link to EHRC)

So, what's the huge problem then? That in a time of economic downturn, during a pandemic, operations have been cancelled? That also goes for people with terminal illnesses, so I would refrain from dramatics there. The problem as I see it is trans activists very much do seek to ride roughshod over the rights, language and freedom of women. From Kate Scottow to Caroline Farrow, Marion Miller to Maya Forstater; from the endless stream of women censured, sacked, intimidated, beaten, vilified and silenced, it's very much pitting our rights against that of trans people. Maybe be honest about that, and defend or denounce.

As for the link to the EHRC listing ratings, that should be positive for you, including that the majority of the public feel no animosity towards trans people. Although perhaps you know a key issue was the fact that many respondents were under the impression 'trans woman' meant transsexual. That's another initiative of Stonewall and allies. Once people understand the vast majority transwomen never have surgery to remove their penises, that looks a bit different. For example (from the EHRC, above):

"51% of respondents said they would be comfortable or very comfortable with trans women accessing a women’s refuge; with 24% feeling very comfortable and 22% neither agreeing or disagreeing. The percentage who were comfortable or very comfortable had dropped by 10 percentage points from the previous survey in 2016"

But, according to this pretty detailed YouGov poll "It is worth noting, however, that Britons do not support such access for those who have not yet undergone gender reassignment surgery. By 41-46% to 26-30% people oppose those who have not physically transitioned being able to use their new gender’s changing rooms. Likewise, 39-41% oppose them being able to use their new gender’s toilets, compared to 31-32% who are in support."

So, be cautious of linking to a study which neglects to inform respondents the vast majority of trans women never have gender reassignment surgery, if you want to get it passed us 'gender-critical feminists'. We are a pedantic lot.

McConnell says it's "convenient for the anti-trans corners of society to ignore the awkwardness and cynicism of their alliances in order to pursue their agenda". Now now, Freddie, we aren't generally anti-trans at all. If you're gender non conforming, you'll be at home here. You are at home here, if you want to be. We just disagree with your religious take on gender. That's all. I'm not anti religion, per se. I certainly don't slate religious people. I respect diversity of opinion and belief. What's not 'convenient' is the institutional capture your lot has achieved in the 'left' wing press. We talk about how much the right are stinky, farting, blanket-hogging bedfellows - a lot. The fact we've been ideologically purged by the new-McLeft is not on us. You really should try listening some time.

Apparently the accusations against Stonewall are 'conveniently vague', and so, mate, I can help you out here. They aren't, they're very detailed - the charges against Stonewall are that they have given likely illegal advice on the Equalities Act, leading to the censoring of women. That their trans policies are anti-women. That they have refused to enter dialogue to lower the toxicity of the debate. They've prevented women with relevant specialism from taking part in the discussions around how the census be conducted. The list goes on.

But, so does Freddie; blah blah blah, yet more scare quotes and attempting to dismiss professors being no-platformed, vilified and abused with complicit backing by Stonewall, who seek to erase the voices of women. McConnell does not explain how Stonewall has been unfairly smeared with the accusation they interpreted the law as they would like it to be, rather than how it is, but we have more whataboutery to come...

Stonewall's embellished version of the EA is now, says Fred, deemed proof it "wants to get rid of single-sex spaces". Which they do. And, yes, which they also deny, but they most definitely do; they 'will advocate for the removal of all instances of permitted discrimination of trans people from the act'. What that means is, in those times where single sex services are really crucial - when asking for a woman to examine you for forensics after being raped; when escaping a violent partner and needing to be in a woman only refuge; when hospitalised for psychosis, convinced men are trying to kill you - Stonewall will lobby to make sure you get what and who you're given. How dare you try to exclude any self identifying (don't forget this is a key part of their goal) woman?

In addition, they support calls for a judicial review to take 'sex by deception', i.e. not telling a new sexual partner you are biologically of the opposite sex to that which you present yourself, off the statute books.

Now, despite all that, despite the sinister plans laid out in the Denton's documents, McConnell says it is us who is being a bit slippery, by suggesting that “gender identity” "is a more capacious term than the legally sanctioned “gender reassignment”; in other words, they argue the charity is sneakily trying to expand legal protections for trans people" - at this point, the lazy duplicity is too much for me. Do you know what you're talking about, or is it just unbridled, bare-faced lies that get you through the day? (I knew moustaches were a bad sign - essentially a comfort blanket for lies)

McConnell says "it really all comes down to a misinterpretation of Stonewall’s trans inclusion guidance" which is "based on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance".

Why then, pray tell, if that's the case, have EHCR dumped Stonewall? And why did they ever employ them?

According to McConnell, we "seek to limit or roll back legal protections for trans people" and want "equality law and guidance to only apply to those “transsexuals” they grudgingly approve of". 

Freddie, here's the thing: We do understand that some people make as meaningful a transition as they can. We believe they are deserving of specific legal protection. What we don't believe is anyone who claims they're a woman should receive all the rights and protections of women. We don't want anyone abused or oppressed for gender nonconformity, we just understand equality relies on certain apparatus to enable full social inclusion. I also don't think you should self identify into having disabled parking badges, or bus passes. These are things that enable everyone to have a basic standard of life. 

A bit more about the press colluding with the government to "concoct a disingenuous moral panic", which is a little bit rich; the lie "Stonewall is fighting for the dignity and safety of all LGBTQ+ people" which will certainly come as news to lesbians; the plight of the NHS when trans healthcare (phalloplasty, mastectomy, GRS and hormones) is concerned. Again, the absolute self-centreing here is startling - disabled children are given respite care, or put in hospitals, hundreds of miles from their family; people are dying through a lack of cancer treatment; suicidal people are assessed as not distressed enough and released to their deaths; elderly couples, together for decades, are placed in different care homes and die of heartbreak - it's rough out there.

"Instead of denigrating my trans sisters in the name of straw-man arguments about “male violence”" - I just can't with this sanctimonious facade of moral high ground. It's breathtakingly deceitful. McConnell then uses the apparent suicide of a transwoman in Ireland as a case in point, suggesting this has more relevance to the UK press than the actual legal misinformation pushed by groups like Stonewall and Mermaids, who are the only ones standing up for "our legal protections, healthcare and essential humanity". If this isn't moral panic-mongering, I don't know what is. It's of course tragic when anyone takes their own life. It is also almost certainly more complicated than long waiting lists for surgery, though, and, as we know, suicide doesn't drop after surgery. It's part of the agony trans people can endure, which I stand with you in mourning and demanding much better mental health resources for.

Blaming everyone else, ignoring the tragedies other people face every day, being so doggedly transfixed on the issues which affect your community alone and lying about or strawmanning others is not likely to be the best tactic indefinitely.

Read something outside of your bubble, it doesn't require a vaccination or mortal risk - you might actually learn something.

With a poignant sign off, we have Freddie explain "We never thought we could rely on this government for fair treatment. But it is dismaying to realise we cannot count on the press either" - Welcome to reality. Welcome to scrutiny, a tiny bit of accountability, Freddie. I won't say I understand, as I can only imagine such an attentive and fawning media, that many platforms, or as much freedom to speak. 

Petition from the LGB Alliance asking Stonewall to reconsider its stance here

More on the Stonewall exodus, language control, diversity championship and public money spent on them