Content Making, Interfaking - Introduction & Rip-Off Chanel

Misinformation about medical conditions is unethical and dangerous, that's a given. Some are painful, life changing or life limiting, and can even result in feelings of shame, carrying real social stigma.

Sadly, the various conditions the social media shitlords call 'intersex' has grown into near mythological status, popularly used to slap down gender sceptics and offered up as irrefutable evidence sex is not binary.

It's a very popular narrative in certain sections of society, and I guess if you're dysphoric or otherwise concerned with appearing to be the opposite sex, it's reassuring to hear anything which blurs the immutable reality it. Also, if you're a credulous fool with a mate who claims to have been born with 'both sets' of genitals, it confirms you're not a gullible mark.

 

Lots of people once had that mate; the one who knows the sacred Aikido assassin punch, beholden only to masters. The one with two, huge dongs, and the ability to trigger breast growth in your girlfriend, just by hanging out and smoking your weed while gawping at her.

Anything that enables you to continue to believe this is welcome. He has science, not a sexual harm prevention order, behind him.

It must be extremely difficult to face infertility or have a body which varies in such a personal way. It also must be really distressing to see this relentless torrent of bullshit, all in the name of some twat's social media following.

I'm not any kind of expert, so I implore readers to please check out these resources:

On Interfakers:
- Detection of Factitious Intersex Conditions (on the huge uptick in people falsely appropriating intersex conditions)
For Lived Experience:
- June42, Jennifer Milligan
- Differently Normal, Happily Living With Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Clare CAIS
- MRKH Voice, Claire Graham
From Biologists:
- Project Nettie
- Reality's Last Stand
- The Transgender Intersex Gambit
- The Paradox Institute
A Relevant Sceptic:
- The Quackometre Andy Lewis

There are many more. Please give them a read, because this needs to be challenged whenever it pops up.

Interfakers - A Short Demonstration 

⬆️This ⬆️ is a pick 'n mix of ignorance and fantasy

⬆️No one is born with both genitals. 

⬆️Seb Potter knows his stuff. Stop digging, 'Myr. Kai Alexis'

⬆️Captured, like the shitbird s/he is

⬆️You'd be both. A male and female.
But critically, you'd be in two separate bodies.

⬆️Ovaries descended to the testicular position? Are they in a scrotum? Just airing? That's a serious prolapse / symptom of a bear attack. Seek immediate help.

⬆️XXY is Klinefelter's. Klinefelter's is unambiguously male. Go home and sober up

⬆️The human swiss army knife - repopulating a planet near you

⬆️You are:
1) a medical miracle
2) two people in two separate bodies
3) full of shit

⬆️ So many stabs in the dark, everyone else has died

⬆️I guess one of those special, astonishing gotcha sexes we're suddenly seeing so many of. Also, if I remember correctly, soon after you metamorphosed into extremely embarrassed 😉

⬆️ Ahh, 🦇💩.

Or, technically, shit originating from the ringpiece of a bat

⬆️Yes, fascinating. Sounds like your friend is what's known in the motoring trade as a cut 'n shut. 

The disinformation is now so trendy and garners so much praise, media who really should know better partake in it. 

Just like this, on 'Nikolai Given'

And very occasionally, the truth slips:

So at the very least, exercise caution when someone in the alphabetti mob claims it, as they are normally talking absolute bollocks.

With the unwitting participants of this near-industrial level propaganda machine, when you get down to brass tacks it's sometimes partly informed on bizarre porn genres. It is true, some men do have vaginoplasty whilst retaining the almighty dick. And they certainly seem more likely than most to do porn, but please, don't be fooled.

Sadly, the fantasy formation of what an intersex person is features in quite a few fetishes.

When it comes to the pretenders, considering they're a group who commonly shit the bed over misgendering, it's some fucking chutzpah to continually (and against frequent correction) mis-sex people with variations or differences of sexual development (DSDs).

And yet they do.

They roll all of the 40+ DSDs up into one, amalgamous condition, call it an additional sex, use it as a gotcha ('erm, intersex people exist)' and tell these people with misunderstood and sometimes life limiting conditions they are not really men or women.

I'm going to have a look at two such content making, interfaking, purveyors of misinformation - Mikey Chanel & Sydney K Bean.

So, Mikey Chanel - anyone remember this man / transwoman / medical miracle?



⬆️Here, that bastion of scientific inquiry (🙄) Empowered Trans Women do their bit of propagandism. Why is a trans advocate group so interested in this? Because they want to publicise anything that blurs the categories of sex and gender, which hints that sex is not binary, or confers a biological basis to trans identity.

It was November 2020 when we first heard Mikey was four months pregnant. Now, either Mikey has the gestational length greater than an elephant, was hit by a sudden (and uncharacteristic) wave of bashful introversion, or that baby never was.

Here, a page unconscionably called Medico Topics, describes how he had "feminine pair of genitals hidden from sight".

Mikey's disappearance (and deletion of all social media) around the later stages of this phantom pregnancy is also speculated upon, with the possible reasons cited being the baby died before the birth, due to "preterm birth, low birth weight, or birth abnormalities."

So, basically, anything. No connection with his 'condition'. It could equally be true he attained sainthood in the Church of Genderwoo and was gathered up by a targeted rapture, snaffling him to the depths of TRAinbow hell.

Or, maybe it was the trans genocide?

So why do I speak so glibly of a situation outwardly appearing a tragedy?
Because it was an unmitigated load of wank.

Mikey claimed to have PMDS - persistent müllerian duct syndrome (estimates range from 150-300 cases known, worldwide, ever), an extraordinarily rare difference of sexual development that is marked by some internal female reproductive organs in those born male. Those with PMDS are, by definition, male.

The müllerian duct is a primitive starting block which develops into the female reproductive tract. This follows the wolffian duct, which ultimately, in males, develops into the male reproductive tract, along with kidneys etc. Both appear in embryonic humans and then are either developed or broken down by the genes and subsequent hormones when sex differentiation occurs.

At first, Mikey said he was pregnant from anal sex, blaming a sort of magic portal in his rectum, trafficking sperm to his uterus. It almost could be a film, a cross between nuns funneling children across nazi lines and Monty Python's ballad of spunk sanctity.

Now you or I (or even a semi-decent journalist) might think 'wait, that's miraculous, isn't it? A special channel between the rectum and uterus? Surely that'd be fatal?' 

I think it would, considering the likelihood of faeces or at least bacteria moving into an otherwise sealed womb.
(Fancy a uterus with a rectal fistula holding less shit than than the owner's well publicised back story..)

Perhaps realising his mistake, Mikey changed the story and said he, an 18-year old (as he then claimed to be) imminently starting medical transition, was given the green light and had fertility treatment before the recommended prophylactic hysterectomy.

Here reports vary, with the Mail claiming the egg came from a donor and in News.Com.au Mikey recounts: “They told me that I had a cervix, ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes and that I could get pregnant if I wanted to."

“Then they showed me my uterus on the screen.”

A real pity he never got any pictures to take home and show people. Isn't it? Especially when there were so many pictures of Mikey being scanned.

Of course, as Mikey is male, even with this (male specific) condition he would not have functional ovaries.
“My male parts came back infertile, but I was told that my ovaries were functioning".

It wouldn't have taken much work to debunk this obvious hoax, for which no responsibility has ever been accepted nor to my knowledge any correction made.

Anyone with access to a search engine would quickly see, PMDS is a male DSD and no ova is produced as there are never functioning ovaries.

Still, the story goes those doctors thought this 18 year old with a penchant for TikTok, excessive bronzer and selfies was at the stage where single motherhood was manageable, and he sailed through the process. The process where, per the Daily Mail, and News.Com.au, they inserted one of his fertilised ova into a fallopian tube and then monitored this incredible pregnancy. 

They didn't waste time with freezing the fictional ova, oh no. They just made it happen now because reasons.
Reasons so serious, not one of Mikey's specialists was ever known to comment.

Yes, that's right - despite making ABC, The Daily Mail and endless other tabloids, not one got hold of his specialist and no science journal picked it up.



Hallelujah, Gender Affirmed

“At age five I’d be playing with my aunt’s purses and putting on my mum’s lipstick.

“I never felt like a boy. I was quite effeminate and I never really went through a whole ‘boy puberty’ thing" - see?! This is about substantiating gender.

After much posing with some fierce abdominal gasses and tens of thousands of people across all platforms getting highly excited, Mikey was allegedly exposed for grooming minors and disappeared to the great maternity unit of 'shit, I blew my credibility-on-sea.'
YouTube channel Taste The Tea do a synopsis here.

So I think we can discount Mikey as a bullshitter. But there'll be another to replace him any moment now. And at some point, we really need to address it

Rosie Duffield's Malevolent Plot (As Foiled By Steve)

For the more studious, analytical trans activist, the name of the game is a twelve+ tweet thread dishonestly deconstructing something a prominent gender critic has said. Better still when the subject is already a politically isolated woman with a history of trauma (hi Zoe McConnell & Sarah Brown). 

Watch out for it, and remember: they share their theories about what they think we believe. We focus on what they have done  

Boring bit - Steve Wardlaw set up an insurance company (he has a 'zeal' for it, appaz).

Steve, modestly avoiding the camera, deep in gesticulating conversation...

He's described as an active ambassador for 'Stonewall on their trans ally program', which is obviously a great start, and is a governor at his local primary school.

He was openly gay with his now husband in Moscow, which deserves some respect. Otherwise he appears to be one of a generic (yet elite) league of businessmen.

So anyway, Steve is just explaining how Rosie Duffield is a purveyor of anti-trans dogma. She might be smiling, with her pretty face, but to the trained eye of Steve she gives the game away. Here, picking her apart with sneer quotes aplenty, Steve excels.

And, I am trying to understand.

It strikes me this is a classic, superficial performance of rationality concealing a litany of allusions, nods, winks - and fuck all else. 

Rosie Duffield writes a letter to The Times regarding the Asleep at the Wheel: An Examination of Gender and Safeguarding in Schools report by the Policy Exchange.

As we all know, Duffield has written, said and been perceived to have thought things which have, by intention of not, the capacity to deflate penises from Land's End to John O'Groats. She must be held accountable for this, so Steve lets rip like a disappointed teacher with a red biro:

1) Appealing to historical homophobia 

To start, Steve brings to mind the abuse of gay and lesbian people 'back in the day'. 

It's an obvious comparison to make, we hear it all the time. It's a handy one because it's close to universally accepted it was an irrational, cruel and stupid persecution of a group who posed no danger whatsoever and who couldn't help who they were.

Fear, hatred or revulsion of gay people is the epitome of irrationality.

There really was (and still is) discrimination enforced in schools with homophobia going unchecked - this is something gender critical feminists are mocked for noting, even when Tavistock clinicians made the same point.

Steve muddies the water here by referring to authoritarianism in opaque terms. It almost looks as if he's casting any approach by authorities as authoritarian, which could just be a result of Twitter character limits, or an expedient ploy to damn with word association.

"Children must be protected" could apply to any of the Stonewall led initiatives I'm sure he advocates, so that's worth mentioning.

Protecting children will be a talking point forever, because they are fundamentally vulnerable to external, peer and self-initiated dangers. 

How many more issues should be sidelined because they could be ridiculed as 'think of the children'? Should we mock sex education - it's all about thinking of their safety, happiness and welfare, isn't it? Or school shooters - do you stop the drills in American schools, because they're really rare?

It's still a great angle if you want to poison the well at the get-go - so let's set that aside as the yucky bit of scrap it is.

Everyone knows section 28 is a dark part of very recent history, and so it's both relatable and shocking all at once.

2) 'Sounds familiar, amirite?'

This turns swiftly into the insinuation  that what underlies Duffield's concern is not concern at all, merely archaic prejudice dressed up with the hand-wringing busy-body model befitting many, normally female, virtue signalling conservatives. Margaret Thatcher's fear of gayness, Mary Whitehouse's prudishness. Frigid aunts, bitter spinsters, crazed nuns and - yes - terfs. Us. Us sexy terfs. 🤷

Of course protection can be a mask for bad things, but that doesn't mean it is not protection, does it? What Steve should explain is why it is not an honest summation. Why would he believe Duffield is party to veiled attempts to oppress?

 

Which brings me to this - who's life is Duffield trying to make intolerable?

Does anyone see in Duffield - who's responded to surround-sound abuse with nothing but measured, reasoned civility - a person who would want this? Is this a sincere concern that she hasn't already thought long and hard about this?

I doubt it.

3) 'She uses words which are DElIbEraTELy dESiGnEd! - TEXTBOOK!!!'

Now we actually get to Duffield's own words, and already we have to trust Steve can commune with the Ghost of Future Yet to Come - Duffield has some unpalatable argument afoot. 

It's a thin end of the wedge, a slippery slope that begins where your aggressive dismissal of feminists ends. Why do you think Duffield is sweetening us up, Steve? What evil is she smuggling?

What is 'trans', that's the question, isn't it? 

We all know that some people believe they feel like, should have been born as, or desperately wish to be, the opposite sex. 

It's this fault line that leaves us so far apart and often speaking different languages. Is trans a coping mechanism, or innate identity that can only be addressed with a whole culture of support (lest they encounter misgendering and consequently suicidal ideation or attempts) and quite possibly medical and surgical treatment? 

Does being trans make a decent comparator to being gay, when it's an action to relieve suffering rather than a free expression of one of the most critical elements of complicated lifeforms - sex, companionship and love?

Which trans is the real one? 

I'm opting for coping mechanism. With the best will in the world I do not believe anyone is born in the wrong body, that male and female brains or souls get mixed up in the sorting office on the astral plane before at last joining their newly emerging bodies. Transition is a statement mission and strategy. It has many drawbacks and should be a last resort.

I'd also like to make it clear to Steve and the millions like him: having a mental illness is not a slur on a person - or at the very least it shouldn't be. 

This frequent refrain, suggesting or outright declaring mental illness is akin to being dehumanized, insulted, patronized - it's doing all of those things to those of us with mental illnesses, under the guise of being kind to another group. And it needs to stop. 

Having mental illness makes no one less than, no one is necessarily unreliable, weak, incapable or demeaned. It doesn't mean we're not rational, or live in a deluded or psychotic state.

4) 'It's section 28 through the back door' (ooh err)

What is a backdoor section 28? How does that work? 

Studies are normally taken from a small subsection. Do we need different protocol now? Do you dismiss the happy clappy trans 'affirmative' figures based on the tiny number of people with dysphoria who undergo medical treatments and remain in contact for follow-up surveys? 

Because that really is a minute fraction of a percent, and you can't speak for those who don't go to clinics and manage in other ways.

5) 'Anti gay bigots from 30 years ago' 

More appeal to the past.

So here's the thing:

"Children deserve to be children" also echoes the trans activists' 

"protect trans youths" 

"let trans kids play" 

"trans kids belong". 

'Resurrected' - this is highly loaded language.

Did people 40 years ago say supporting girls who wanted to keep their babies rather than being sent out of town for a few months, to return with nothing but stretch marks and post natal depression, was tantamount to encouraging them to have babies for a council house?

Was teaching them about safe sex the same as telling them to go and fuck around, because with a condom there's no finding out?

Was the idea we should seek a justice system that works to rehabilitate in the community akin to letting some kids run riot? 

Is sending a kid who struggles in an academic environment to a vocational college giving up on them?

Can comparisons be bad, even when there's a thin veneer of a parallel?

The idea Duffield wants to endanger certain children is dishonest, batshit and lazy. Rather, I imagine she wishes to see an overturning of repressive and regressive gender norms, a reckoning with the homophobic environment in schools, open-ended, inquisitive talking therapy, an affirmation of every body fitting any gender and strong anti bullying measures. 

6) Urgh, she thinks the trans are infectious + 'It sounds like section 28. Again.'

So apparently safeguarding is 'designed to be done on an individualised basis'.

Is it? 

Aren't there multiple safeguarding principles we use in a broad manner every day? I honestly don't understand this.

The comparison to gayness, again. Let's go back to that archaic fear of homosexuality - it is true the open identification of gayness has increased, but by the thousands of percents? 

Do we see whole friend groups becoming gay in short succession?

And if they decide later they aren't gay, can they continue on with their lives and bodies in tact?

Does Steve actually believe transition, with its heavy reliance on medication and surgery, the difficulties it brings with relationships, sex, children, fertility, just living honestly in the world, is a good outcome? 

It may not be avoidable, and we should support those who do so, but is this optimal? Or is it better they speak to people, work themselves out without the risks that transition entails?

Does Steve outright deny the existence of social contagion? From The Dancing Plagues of 1518 to Resignation Syndrome, affecting refugees in Sweden to The Town That Caught Tourettes, the anorexia and cutting phenomena that swept up adolescents of my generation, they often effect adolescent girls. 

It's a conversion of psychic anguish, a psychosomatic phenomena and it's both real and serious. It may not account for all or even many cases, but when they impact small communities or whole countries (Resignation Syndrome has never been recorded outside of Sweden, it results in children falling into medically verifiable coma-like states requiring medical assistance like tube feeding, and normally resolves when asylum is granted - awful and fascinating, no?) it does seem to bear more resemblance to gender dysphoria/trans-ness than being gay.

7) 'Again, safeguarding is all, but...'

 

'In the head of some people' I wonder who Steve could mean?

It's fairly standard misogynistic tactic to dismiss women as hysterical. Some people might try to paint well-founded fears as hyperbole, because of their need to evade the issue and a deep-seated derisive attitude towards women. But I don't know who I mean here.

Safeguarding is all, and it should be equally important to safeguard all children, too.

8) Sinister & sinisterer - made up terms

How does Duffield advocate for 'squashing' a minority of children? Where is she suggesting that children with gender distress, gender dysphoria, children who identify as trans, are a threat to other children?

Is it not possible that she is in fact concerned for those very children?

As for protecting the majority against the minority - of course we do. All day, every day.

Are child molesters anything but a minority? 

Are 'carers' with a fetish for violent, gerontophilic sex a minority or not? Very much a minority, actually, but they also exist and I'd rather they went through DBS vetting before being admitted into responsible roles. 

People bringing weapons or noxious substances onto planes to hijack then for the purposes of terror - common or a tiny fraction of people? 

Are we aware a minority of kids who've suffered abuse can pose a similar risk to other children in certain situations? I hope so.

Safeguarding is about fearing the worst of everyone, and taking measures to mitigate or screen for them.

For fuck's sake man.

Gender distressed sounds like a useful, self-explanatory, layman's term which does not rely on a psychiatric diagnosis - which is what gender dysphoria is and which I can see being used against Duffield if and when she uses it - she's not a medical professional, who is she to issue diagnoses?

That you didn't find a study using it could even be a clue. Like sadness is not necessarily depression, there are symptoms and there are conditions and they can be connected or discrete. 

9) She's being clever + this is important, we're not talking nutters here

Again, the idea distress is mental illness, which is an accusation and a degradation is offensive and genuinely discriminatory, Steve. 

Talking about mental health and seeking a change in popular narratives and approach as a potential resolution over medical and / or (actually authoritarian) social fixes (where 'don't ask, don't tell' becomes 'affirm, don't mention, don't question and ensure no one else does') - this isn't saying gender dysphoria or gender distress isn't real. 

It's saying that it may not be such a indelible condition that a wholesale denial of biological sex is required.

It's a bit like what some dentists refer to as the "blood and volcanite years", where a whole head of teeth were preemptively removed in young adulthood because they would inevitably cause pain and expense later on. And dentures were fine, so what's the problem? 

Aren't we using affirmation, puberty blockers, hormones and surgery as a prophylactic or cure for dysphoria?

Might talking therapy, a heterodox approach, better anti bullying and homophobia programs be preferable? 

Might it be better to acknowledge gender in terms of stereotypes alone, and embrace genuine non-conformity?

Surely we could just look after our teeth and make the irreversible decision to extract only when really necessary?

Why is it clever, Steve? Do you mean sneaky, ominous? I suggest you do.

10) Basically, we were right about her all along. Based on all that mighty fine, compelling evidence

This is a non sequitur. The sum of Steve's analysis is nothing more than nudges, suggestion and saying perfectly benign words with scary sound effects over the top. 

"Rosie Duffield thinks trans people are not literally in the wrong body" 

+ the eery gurgle of distant screams

"She doesn't even use the terms I'm used to" 

+ a creaking door swings open

"She thinks being trans means gender dysphoria, which means they're disgusting, dangerous and need locking up, like those schizo-psycho murderers" 

+ EastEnders' duff duffs.

He gets the core tenets of safeguarding wrong, and he's a school governor (authoritarian or what, Steve?) 

I would hope, if my kids were at his school, he was offered a refresher course on the basis of this alone.

When he speaks about her apparent ease with other people being oppressed, my cynicism pipes up to say no fucking wonder he's in insurance. Looking at everyone as if they are frauds is possibly something for him to work on. 

Not being satisfied with these facades of an argument, which are comprised of a superior attitude plus insinuation-as-bulking agent, that isn't a sign she only cares about misogyny. It means there are genuine problems. 

Rosie Duffield isn't oppressing anyone, she's a really decent, compassionate woman who's been subjected to horrendous abuse and harassment due to her diligence and conscience. 

Abuse that is given a legitimate appearance when liberal-elite insurance bosses like Steve give multiple tweet breakdowns which amount to nothing but 'I don't like her' and invitations to imagine wrong things in the past™.

11) Vague allusions to VAWG without context + 'but remember, it's secondary to these growing and unsubstantiated claims I have' 

This can be summed up as "it's important, obviously, that girls and women are vulnerable to sexual assault, and children are vulnerable, full stop. We should bloomin' well deal with it, and that's a promise."

"But, some men are women. And Rosie Duffield still doesn't understand or be quiet, even after the kind of explanation I just gave you has been bellowed at her for ages now. She's doing it wrong, I won't say more but I will keep tutting sagely."

12) And without any evidence I hereby assert that she hates the gays too! 

Unfortunately, the sheer number of bullshit non-splanations* such as Steve has cobbled together here, is so gargantuan, Duffield has no way of refuting them.

*I just invented that word. You won't find it in any medical paper, but I hope it's sufficiently obvious what I mean

So I implore you to actually read what she said, listen to her speak, before troubling her with any more of this low-key harassment and cynical smearing. 

I think she's probably the bravest politician we have going, and history will be celebratory of her and her conscientious stance. 

Because she's not a homophobe, or a transphobe, or a reactionary.  

Sadly however, a lot of males who do not care to understand the vulnerability of women and children, and who suffer from a kind of feminist-induced, mental colic, are actually pretty damn prejudiced and reactionary and deeply authoritarian, too. 

The evidence is available. Don't be fooled by the invested class - there's a huge, multifaceted tragedy unfurling and The Right Side Of History will in retrospect look like a bunch of Blairite warmongers shrieking about weapons of mass destruction.

Retweets of Steve's masterpiece

Buddy of the blog, Helen Belcher 

And within hours this was followed by the Cressida & Crispin wing of Labour trying to force Duffield out. Again.

By Elsie Wilbeshot, Terven Gobshite & Bullshit Soothsayer