The O'Malley Standard

A few sentences that included the words;

"women's sexuality is very different to men's. We don't seem to have or suffer from paraphilias ... and we certainly don't seem to impose them on society"

..has become a smoking gun, to accuse a woman of lesbophobia. Of 'comparing lesbians to autogynephiles' 'attacking butch lesbians' 'accusing lesbians of being sexual predators' and lord knows what else. 

And I don't think it's fair.

Years ago, I spent way too much time in a gay-friendly bar, in a town and a time without many gay-friendly bars. I knew everyone there, including a butch lesbian. She called herself something typically blokey - let's say Dave.


Dave was in no denial about being a woman, but she definitely put effort and pride into a style that made her mistakeable for a man - tailored suits, cufflinks and cologne with slicked back hair. She was not so pristine in the daytime, but always on a night out; stylish, expensive clothes, looking like a '60s gangster. She would wink, whistle and held doors open. She was in her element playing the archetypal old school gent, being flirty, chivalrous and socially dominating.

Once, Dave told an extremely drunk man to leave the bar as he was causing upset by sleazing over women. The man started shouting and swearing. So far, so depressingly familiar, but what sticks out in my memory is Dave warning him 'not in front of the ladies, mate. Not in front of the ladies'.


It seemed poignant, and she said it several times. The man refused to move, made an obscene gesture, and she smacked him, hard, knocking him over. I was conflicted - it annoyed me because I dislike machismo and being patronised as a delicate lady. But it worked, it was well deserved, and most importantly, it was funny.


Dave underplayed the event in a way that somehow meant it was frequently referenced, and straightening her jacket sleeves afterwards there was a bit of a pout. It wasn't of the cringeworthy Amanda Jette 'Rowan' Knox type, it wasn't contrived. She was proud, and, I think, feeling pretty hot in her classical rendition of the White Knight.


I feel pretty confident Dave would agree that her get up was 'sexually charged'. I've worn clothes that are key to my sexual identity and expression, and I've definitely heard other women say the same.


We are sexual beings, and presentation / clothing / display is part of it. I expect all sexual behaviour appears more pronounced and prevalent in men, who are apparently more visual than women, but to suggest that we are devoid of this seems a little extreme.


'What - who says we are devoid of it?' you may ask, but you probably know what this is about.


There have been endless controversies surrounding Stella O'Malley, the Irish therapist and founder of GenSpect, set up to pool resources for the families of children who identify as trans, offering a supportive space and alternative to the affirmative model, which has a vice-like grip in the United States.



I don't keep up with it all, but from what I have seen it's long crossed the line into bullying, and O'Malley is now in the position she can do no right.

After consistent murmuring of disapproval that's eclipsed important work, and the odd tsunami of intense criticism, she is now condemned for blocking people. I find it surprising it's taken so long in many cases, and the claims it was a red flag to block fellow professionals presupposes there was a safeguarding issue before them, not just an exhaustive, five year series of controversies O'Malley had finally shut down. At least on X / Twitter. And no one holds serious discussion there.


Back to the clothes, though - I wish I could find a clip, but it reminded me of a TV show years ago where Dawn Porter (now O'Porter) hanged out with a little crew of drag kings, trying to find her own inner monarch. The other kings recommended shoving a lemon into her trousers for a bulge, and she remarked on how it made her want to hump everything, to which the others gave varying degrees of knowing smirk. It's a thing.

You don't need to look far into the online forums dedicated to lesbian chat (those not infiltrated by men, which is tricky) to find women talking about their predilection for the smell of aftershave on themselves or a lover, or how hot they feel in workwear like steel toe-caps, DeWalt trousers and toolbelt. But it's not fair to focus on lesbian women - it's anywhere women discuss sex and relationships.
As for the gender disruption, there's a subreddit full of women who wear strap-ons who appear to hail from all demographics, but to generalise, the clothes or accessories generally considered male are more apparent among gay women.


There are women who pack because it turns them on, and those who love leather gear and bondage trousers. Maybe it's all part of a sexual self-actualization, a ritual that works as a cerebral foreplay.


I suggest a critical feature of women's sexuality is we want to see our desirability reflected back at us in the object of our interest. I've thought this for a long time, because it's often struck me how grossly unimaginable it is so many men can get their their rocks off despite, or even because, the unfortunate prostituted human they exploit feels sickened, disgusted and appalled by them and what they're forced into.
I've never heard a woman say anything close to hinting at that, while lists of recent porn genres / titles I've seen are stacked with it, as if the real norm that men are excited in breaking is that of consent. It's a gruesome, chilling, horrible truth.


Anyway, Dave wasn't in those casual, gender neutral items otherwise known as 'just clothes', which most of us wear every day. That's not what O'Malley was describing as sexualised, and definitely not as part of a fetish. In fact, she makes that crystal clear.


O'Malley's whole point was it isn't fetishistic - she said it's men who have paraphilias.
I don't want to be the person hollering on social media about not being listened to, when in fact, it's just not agreed with, but if you hear her stress that women don't have these paraphilia or inflict their kinks on society, I don't know how anyone can then turn it into 'comparing lesbians to AGPs' or 'calling butches sexual predators'.

O'Malley's controversial comments

Another thing - I don't see the word 'butch', and she never said a word about flannel shirts. But both have become part of the mythology already, and very few people seem to be correcting that.
It was a bad faith shorthand, used to parody, and now it's to strawman. Often, it seems, unwittingly.
But why would she bring this up anyway?


I imagine many are aware of the Thanksgiving podcast O'Malley and Kelly-Jay Keen did with Benjamin Boyce, but for those who aren't, that is why this even came up. Travis Brown, the interviewer in the latest offending video, asked O'Malley about it.


O'Malley has been repeatedly criticised by Keen and this discussion was held in the wake of Genspect's tweet from their conference featuring a picture of detransitioner Laura Becker and 'Phil Illy', a self-confessed autogynephile. He was wearing a frankly despicable blue dress with leg warmers and gloves. His lank, greasy-looking hair only accentuating his male pattern baldness.

There was uproar, and Stella was feeling embattled, under consistent attack and misrepresentation. And it was misrepresentation. 


After a long discussion I hope to cover soon, Keen says she just doesn't think men in dresses should be there, and GenSpect needs a dress code.
O'Malley had already explained that she would be sued - in much of America, women in jail are sharing cells or dorms with violent, intact men, for fuck's sake - and so she asks Keen, what should this dress code be?


'Business attire' replies Keen, because we shouldn't aid the erosion of social norms. Keen was praised for plain talking, but on closer inspection it was pitted with cop outs, overrun with gish gallop and failure to engage properly with O'Malley's points.

Definitely not getting a kick out of their business attire: Martine 'giant foot' Rothblatt, a random example and trans activist extraordinaire, (alleged) serial rapist Eli Erlick

One of these points being, jeans and a jumper could be enacting a fetish, if it's on men. This is exactly what she was talking about.


As was pointed out by someone furious with O'Malley, a man in a dress is not necessarily any less sexualised than a man in a gimp mask. And it is the same point - clothes can be vehicles for fetish, and it's not necessarily the clothes we think of. I have no doubt that if O'Malley had said this, we'd be hearing mangled, bad faith interpretations of it to further crucify her.


O'Malley's belief appears to be, as a therapist she needs to be approachable, not censorious. She has a curiosity, a different approach to many feminists or women's rights activists, but she agrees childhood transition is wrong and abusive, and women need same sex spaces.


They covered a lot on the Boyce chat. Keen praised O'Malley's work at GenSpect, O'Malley expressed admiration for Keen's undeniable bravery and hoped for closure, and it looked like the hatchet was buried.
Since then, however, it's as if it never happened. Keen dug that hatchet up and started swinging again, as if it was only ever under two inches of dirt and one of her massive neon signs all along.

Here, Kelly-Jay Keen is being highly dishonest. Stella said nothing of the sort.

Personally, I dont want to live in a society that stipulates men shouldn't wear dresses or 'women's' clothes, which is surely what Keen was suggesting, since the sexy secretary is typically in 'business attire' and a well known trope.


I don't think it would change anything, it is bound to be used against women, and it ignores the real problems we face. I don't know how many times I've heard feminists decry the transitioning of little boys, who should have just been allowed to wear the damn dress.


It was undoubtedly careless to use lesbians in this scenario, but considering she was on the spot, thinking of a harmless comparator to dressing in a way that would fall outside of Keen's touted sexed clothing norms, it doesn't seem that surprising.
It's a heuristic, and gay people have been very prominent in gender critical activism.


And, in the end, I just don't believe O'Malley is a homophobe or lesbophobe.
I think she's used to open, explorative discussion, and that can be leapt upon. 

Due to that Debbie and Stephanie Hayton interview, which she has explained and expressed regret over, she will continue to be leapt upon because, for some reason, she can't be forgiven. 

That climate in and of itself can cause more foot in mouth episodes.

Just imagine the fall-out if we applied the O'Malley standards across the board?


One of her most rabid critics has been accused of lesbophobia multiple times in the last year alone, suggesting lesbians get 'lady boners' around topless women, which therefore makes an environment unsafe for children.
She's on several occasions called lesbian women 'heterophobes', said that 'the lesbian dick panderers are the most absurd', that lesbian separatists are 'crazy broads', taunted them that they were created from 'man juice' (🤢) or accused them of jealousy. She uses sexually degrading insults liberally. But no one seems to even mention it.


Lots of those seizing upon the latest struggle session have been appalling to other people in rows, doing and saying things now considered unequivocally wrong. I don't know where you start if you apply this to every utterance from Kelly-Jay, but inviting men who carry weapons to play toilet attendant wasn't great.

I'm not invested enough in the views or crimes of everyone involved in this fight to create a league table or purity rating. I agree with terrible people on some, limited, points. It seems very odd that we're to assume some stopped clocks are never right, or we can't be seen to acknowledge that people are imperfect.

This is a purity spiral. And the purity is to be as blunt and brutal as possible. 


I think the truth of the matter is we can all build beautiful ideals, replete with stunning windows that let in the light. 

Windows with stained glass depictions of morally important lessons, ones that gradually become conservatories we can enjoy our well deserved rest in, unaware that praxis is not as simple as saying stuff to followers, and maybe the glazing isn't actually that thick.


Another vehement and relentless detractor not so long ago became embroiled in a row with a woman who's life was destroyed by an abusive, autogynephilic husband. This quickly escalated to such towering insanity the ex-husband was traced, along with her estranged son, to be told she was insane and required mental help.


Of all the absolute no-nos, you'd have thought reigniting the conflict between an abused woman - a trans widow, no less - and her pervy husband, to involve him in questioning her sanity, is about the biggest, stinkiest, most taboo 'no' you can go. I think that's far more egregious than suggesting some lesbians get a thrill out of dressing macho.


I'm sure I could have many more examples if I could be arsed to do some more muck raking. I don't doubt I could be slaughtered myself.


Here, however, is the other component, which I admit I can't comment on further than acknowledging it - many lesbians are feeling very hurt.
There has been a brewing sense of anger and betrayal I've missed. One of not being taken seriously, their hard work being exploited, snobbish attitudes from other, often straight women who are frequently less 'hardline' - ie. more palatable, and respected by the media.

I'm not elite, or from a well-respected background. It's the opposite really, as anyone who's read my more personal stuff will know. But I am straight, with some pretty middle class sensibilities, and it's entirely possible I've been blind to a lot of what has been going on in the background here.


I note that, because the rage comes from frayed nerves that seem to have been under stress for a very long time. Lesbian feminists and lesbians generally have been at the forefront of social justice (in its purest sense).
They nursed and donated blood to their gay brothers dying from AIDs, were integral to the second wave and building of refuges for battered women. They were a notable presence in significant human rights and anti nuclear campaigns and have been ridiculed and demonised by the press and society generally. Lesbian visibility is nonexistent and I worry for our baby lesbians, growing up in a climate where the 'hairy man-hater' stereotype still looms large and gay women on TV are, more often than not, the shock-exclusive hyperfem girls and women who appeal to the male gaze.


There is zero butch visibility and certainly no role model for a young woman today, as well as lesbians being the most under assault from trans ideology, whether that's AGP transbians infiltrating dating sites and bars or young lesbian girls having mastectomies and chemically disrupted.

This is really upsetting, damaging, and needs to change.

There are numerous women involved or taking sides in this row, who I know personally, or as Facebook friends, or who I strongly admire. I'm trying to understand where they are coming from in condemning Stella so vociferously, but it still feels very unfair. We are clearly talking at cross purposes sometimes, misunderstanding each other, and as I'm one of the straight majority in society I'm happy to put my hands up and say it is me who needs to try here.

So leave replies, or recommend blogs or threads, please, and I'll do my best to read and think on.


Just, please, let's also remember to be a bit more circumspect, a little more targeted, with the opprobrium, and a check the hands of those lobbing shit. We are never going to get anywhere by attacking those on our side. There's no time for this.

Extremism

I hope you like my graphic. It looks all busy and current, suggesting a position on the latest furore over pronouns, platforming, being 'kind' and whether Debbie Hayton should be considered an ally, fifth columnist, or just at all, ever. In, or with, any respect.

But I've no answers. Not really. I'm an annoying Switzerland type here, a 'good people on both sides' fence-sitter, and, like a shit relationship therapist way out her depth, I think everyone has made very good and valid points.

Conspiracy - Not Of Normal Criminal Element

It began as a conspiracy theory, and it hasn't gone away - is there an intent to broaden the sexuality and gender contingent, so to include paedophilia? 

If I'm honest, I have to concede the average TRA is pretty unequivocal in their condemnation when the paedo-advocates speak. But then, a lot also slips under the radar. Even when other people activate the sirens - 

Yes, Even The 'Passing'

A lesson on men being men, even when they look like they're not (although almost always, they do).

I got in a brief Twitter scrap the other day, until the inevitable boredom set in and I muted the dullard bastards.

Steph: The Endo-Bro

TERF Wars is a snappy, handy term when discussing the batshittery of trans rights activism, but it doesn't really do justice to how bitter, infuriating and incomprehensibly stupid it is.

It's been vicious and bloody, until - - uh! What was that? - we looked up, and with a flurry of trumpets and bright lights, they came, to show us the way - to be reasonable. To talk, and to listen.

They are TransLucent, formerly Steph's Place, and reasonable is their middle name.


Reasonable. Feminist. 69 years young - lol! Steph - a raconteur.

Unlike some, TransLucent know respectability can matter.
Well, it might be that, but they're also aware their wives have been pushed right to the fucking limit and cannot, will not, tolerate another social humiliation what-so-fucking-ever.

They paid taxes and mortgages before all this y'know, so despite putting outrageous, ridiculous demands on society, they are not inclined to lob all their life's work into the "fuck it, I'm proper mental" cart.

This makes the activists who go screaming outside the EHRC while self-dousing in piss look like pretty awkward bedfellows, but don't be fooled - Steph may be all professional photoshoot, twiddling his glasses like a brilliantly sharp receptionist. He may have a well-feathered wig, but when it comes to aims, Steph and the exhibitionist golden shower gang are singing from the same hymn (or indeed, plastic bed) sheet.


Budgie (cock) smuggling - by which I mean, taxonomic classification would posit a penis of such minuscule proportions be classed under 'cloaca'. Look it up. Literally you can only make out a slight protrusion because it's been lifted up by the stream of urine it channels

Steph has been studiously ignored here while I had babies, practised not swearing and laughed with an increasingly maniacal cackle at Helen Belcher. Still, it's been too long, so, allow me to remind you of our shared history:

We first crossed swords after responding to his tedious and offensive 'Karen White Was Not Trans' piece, of which he was immensely proud. You can read one of these here; Steph's Place - Where, To Virtually Everyone, The Truth Matters

Dear old Steph fancies himself as able to deconstruct the work of Fair Play for Women - Ie doctor Nicola Williams 

The real victims of Karen White are not the women incarcerated with him, nor specifically those he sexually assaulted. The true victims are the men in dresses 

Along with endless basic mistakes, it was a great showcase of just how little regard he has for the women sexually assaulted in prison by White - a paedophile serial rapist who had just stabbed his elderly neighbour.


Bottom right: "they were minor. Touching a boob is not serious"

Repeatedly, Steph referred to the assaults as 'minor incidents', refusing (read the blogs - I implored him) to show any empathy at all for the victims.
He unilaterally decreed White was not trans, and steadfastly denied that Self ID dictated he was whatever he said he was - and he's learnt nothing since:

This is because Steph is a man, who only began identifying out of his sex in his late fifties.

Of course he can 'lol' and declare groping a woman's breast a 'minor incident', even though that's a grevous, offensively minimised characterisation of what occurred.

Does he have even a glimpse of an insight as to what it is to be flashed at? The visceral fear when being leered at, the feelings of violation when cat-called?

To have your breasts, the focus of so much unwanted attention, since you were so young, grabbed, against your will, and what that likely entails in terms of proximity?

No.

And whatever his protestations, I don't believe he's ever given it any sincere consideration, either. The fear and fury I've experienced was never over these incidents alone - it's because of what they meant, where they began, and what they have previously led to.

For me, living between the ages of 12 and my late twenties felt like an accumulation of endless acts of defilement. I was running the gauntlet, all the way from sleazy glances to rape. I do not speak for any other woman, but I do not believe for a second I'm alone in this.

He has no concept of what almost forms our collective experience, and the fact he would state these revolting sentiments so plainly should bother everyone.

The dishonesty is sickening- having your birth certificate amended affords a veneer of authenticity. How would anyone know you're trans when your documents say you are female?

'lol' says the 'feminist and VAWG activist'

This as well as getting important details and numbers wrong, lying that White was not identifying as trans before jail (considering Steph was told one of his friends on Twitter knew and previously vouched for White's prior gender identity, it was a lie) and accusing TransCrime UK of recording trans people convicted of driving offences, when in fact they were crimes facilitated with the use of vehicles (roadside flashing, abduction, murder etc).

Steph's tagging compulsion is something to watch - it's an indication of the arrogance that he is important and deserves the time of others. I'll return to this later.

Anna brings Steph's attention to the response blog, & is blocked for the bother


Cheers, Barry!

What troubles me is largely demonstrated in this row - it's the caring, sharing, pastel pink respectability schtick, while operating dishonestly, acting with animosity towards women and collaborating with seriously unpleasant men - men who are grotesquely abusive, walking sail ships of red flags and who, presumably, Steph shares many opinions and values with.

The Fifteen Minutes

Steph has been in for more attention lately, after TransLucent's conference miraculously coincided with the grand announcement of his appointment as CEO of Endometriosis South Coast, a charity started by Jodie Hughes.

For what it's worth, my reservoir of spare fucks is in a permanent state of drought, and I note mainly a long resigned sadness about this insulting, ludicrous situation.

NDA - National Diversity Award, not Non Disclosure Agreement 

They can, of course, do what they like with their charity. Steph gave the founder, Jodie, some kind of nomination or praise. Jodie gives it back. Not quite a circle jerk, but close.

More 'tweeting-in-support of my good friend, me' from Steph on his other account 

Urgh, Jodie... It's the combination of being servile numbskulls while also strutting around like a pro rebel that irritates me about these women. The fakeness of it all, and the snark.

But the gruesome twosome were still loaded with chutzpah, and when the shit hit the fan, they crowed that endometriosis has never been discussed as much as in the last week - even though it's Steph and his behaviour in the spotlight, and that what has been said includes total misinformation. 

Steph has been thoroughly assured, probably by himself, that he knows more than any of the women objecting, or those males accepted in these roles - namely gynaecologists. Just look at the arrogance:


💡Fun fact - gynecology is a male dominated profession partly because the instruments used are difficult for smaller hands to operate.

So Steph and Jodie went on to Woman's Hour, where they were actually treated to something approaching equality (Steph's mantra, and perfectly in-line with lib-fem posturing. AKA The Moron's Feminism) meaning, there were questions, and they were challenged by host Emma Barnett.

Both Jodie and Steph were a little spiky, but otherwise appeared to have all the street smarts of slugs holidaying in a salt cave.
Brilliantly, Steph said that 29 men are in medical literature as suffering from it. That's wrong - it is 16. SIXTEEN men, ever. And, it's a similar, not identical, condition.

Why on earth would he bring this up, when the concern is he only cares about trans stuff - otherwise known as men? When 16 men out billions, vs one tenth of menstruating women, suffer with it?

Competing in the idiocracy was Jodie, who claimed endometriosis is not a gynaecological disease.

It was abysmal, and I thought Barnett did well to maintain polite professionalism and not let her contempt run riot, especially considering she has the condition and struggled to conceive because of it.

Later, Steph (obviously) accused Barnett of bullying, because of course he did and that fragile veneer of respect and accountability began flaking off like a coat of eggshell on a deflating balloon.

Thusly, Steph went to Twitter to unleash his pearl-clutching horror at the inhumanity of Barnett's questions, suggesting transphobia was the malevolent driver. Terfs were to blame, too, of course, and now he was just so sad.

Sex Matters give a good synopsis.

Something worth noting is that if you've spent quite as long as Steph allegedly has advocating for endometriosis (and saving hundreds of babies' lives!) there's little mention of endometriosis on his account - in fact, here is its first ever mention, just 15 months ago.

And then the second, five days prior to the publication of this blog.

This is the same for TransLucent / Steph's Place - the first time the word endometriosis appears is September '22.

All mentions have been in relation to ESC; Jodie; when shilling for puberty blockers, which Steph wholeheartedly endorses; or even when tackling the blatant cheating of creepy men like Lia Thomas, who he has steadfastly defended.

"Well if Steph says blockers are harmless, reversible and have an overall beneficial impact on the child, that sounds like an efficacious, trustworthy medication for my struggling kid" said some of the thickest people in England.

Steph also pointed out it's all swings and roundabouts, really. Helpful! You hear that, ladies? The excruciating disorder which dogs your reproductive years is actually a sporting advantage!

Of all Steph's traits, the gloating is especially difficult to witness.
Occasionally it is difficult to spot, and you could even mistake him as being self deprecating. But he's not. Ever.

And, famously (as famous as anything you could associate him with) this goading cuntery:

The above tweet I'll come back to. It defies comprehension that he has managed to forge any kind of career in public life since, however miserly it is. The audacity is off the charts.

I think the best we can do is to use this as a cautionary "hey kids, this is your brain on trans activism". Steph's brain is the egg frying in a pan - a single cell, gloopy and frazzled.

But, still he has managed (along with the terrifying Julie Miller / Major Bernard McClain and 'computer says no' legend Claire Prosho) managed to wrangle these people to attend his caring sharing conference:

TransLucent conference

The fortuitously coinciding conference sounds like a huge success, attended by a coterie of fellow nutters, grifters and shills. Mostly, I much appreciate the disturbing, fully-fucking-out-there visuals they used.

'Live every day in fear based purely on bigotry'!

The aesthetic was a masterpiece. Both futuristic & retro. Emo & happy hardcore, hints of concentration camp talent show & overwhelming tones of 'how can I be privileged, when sometimes I'm sad?' 

It's like an MRA Duncan Godhew meets Edvard Munch's The Scream.

It is interesting for Steph's organisation to use the 'treated like a threat' trope, when he gleefully posts this sort of shit:


Considering we know what a broad spectrum of opinions counts as transphobia, this is somewhat alarming. And, people who are rude to you? What does that mean?

I wonder what kind of threat Steph is to women like me, or to me specifically? I imagine the response would be something like 'you will lose, and transphobia will lose' but it's a very stupid assertion.

Steph was upset he didn't make every national paper. There are not enough trans voices, apparently.

I will inevitably break this blog into parts, because I can't keep it short - this shit blows my mind. For the simple fact this man has, in retirement, 'transitioned', he has the ear and attendance of all of these people, at his own conference.

That is despite speaking to women with utter contempt, associating and collaborating with deeply concerning characters, producing articles and reports that are riddled with rudimentary mistakes and dishonesty, and stomping about with the brazen entitlement of a bear who's broken into your kitchen and can't open tins.

In summary;
I believe Steph is a callous wanker, nestled among other callous wankers, and yet even I feel a wee bit sorry for him now and again.
This is because, bless him, he just isn't very clever, and can't help but consistently get the trans activist class wrong, putting energy and time into projects that get hidden away faster than an alcoholic's bottle opener.

But, it can be amusing. Self assured, feeling sassy, he really believes he makes great points and ripostes.

Kathleen Stock was one to feel the tepid brush of Steph's wrath, having replied to one of Steph's many tagging-people-I-do-not-know tweets:

After finally extracting this obvious truth from Kathleen, who is far too busy and smart to be wasting her time with Steph's bullshit, he took to writing:


This 'go on, say it - say it to me. We both know the answer, and that it's undeniably true, but you'd ordinarily never bring it up' performance, just to announce himself a 'trans woman, and very proud xxx' is beneath puerile. He went on to tweet this risible crap, as if he'd won something.


A little insight for you, Steph - I've doubted very many things in my life.
But of all the things I've wondered, of every single thing I have ever doubted, your 'gender' being at the business end of a hell of a lot of self love isn't one.

The Love My Gender blog is a tangled mess of barely formulated thoughts, which feeds into Steph's belief he must, secretly, be female, and facilitates some frankly grim speculation.

This is bizarre, and his sex couldn't be any clearer - nor his complete denial. He is seemingly unaware we can see he solicited Kathleen's opinion, and has decided that his 'journey's is one of the most difficult and painful in humanity' is just fucking risible.

Where the fuck does this guy get off, I wondered, before remembering and urgently trying to blind my mind's eye.
This is why I don't normally read Steph's blog. It's excruciating.

Is he really this dedicated to being an offensively entitled, intrusive, obtuse, grotty prick? Who would tolerate an unadorned bloke talking like this?

End off? End off what? I know picking people up on spelling or grammar is a dick move, but bring this to your attention purely because only this week he was tweeting:



And then, the 'award winning feminist' who wishes to reassert the empathy-as-a-female trait stereotype.


He rounds it all off with this charming anecdote - a multi-point, unnecessarily detailed list of his wife's insecurities:

Always thought the 'well, I think you're beautiful' line was a coded insult, personally.

Steph claims to be a feminist and strongly in favour of safeguarding and protecting women.
Still, he is far from above recklessly associating gender critical / radical feminists with the murder of a trans identifying teen.

This poor kid was allegedly stabbed by other teens, in a case where no hint of discriminatory motive has been cited. Knife crime has boomed in recent years. It kills a horrifying number of young people.


'Do they need to buy in paper towels?' is another sassy riposte, demonstrating only Steph's ineptitude in cleaning up blood.

He goes on, one paragraph down, to decry the death of Darren Moore, a drag queen found dead in the very beginning of 2023. Moore had previous convictions for four counts of rape of a boy under 16, and his past (including his numerous parole violations, such as working in a boy's gymnastics centre) was becoming increasingly well known, with one man charged with harassment.

It's a pity Steph is so angry and fast to discount actual feminists, because Reduxx did a great job of covering the paedophile procession and it might have helped him avoid publicly mourning the death of a nonce.
Either Steph is not aware of the easily found backstory, or he doesn't care.

There's also the mercenary weaponising of people who have taken their own lives.

In fact, feminists are to blame for many things, in Steph's mind, which I'll return to. I'll also have a good look at his previous antics and examine the caliber of his mates.
Because that is genuinely grim stuff.

I am sure the terven can all breathe a sigh of relief, though - for one of his closest allies, contributor to the project, Julie, assures us he can live Monday to Friday as a man, be a whole life woman Friday evening to Monday morning, use any of our single sex spaces under the equality act and, praise the lord, get it up without viagra.

Miracles, I bring to you!