The media has recently been ablaze with the ‘great’ news that a womb transplant has now been carried out. It is indeed one of the fears of women that the trans lobby will demand such transplants via organ donation, so much so that some women are cancelling organ donation or limiting which parts can be donated. The operation in question was performed on a female who had medical problems, and logistically it would be impossible to perform on a biological male. It’s different if a woman needs this procedure, but it definitely isn’t for men who want to think they’re women.
The understandable desire for a child can lead desperate people to surrogates to fulfil their dream. However, what of the woman who carries the child then has to give it up? What is her status and where is the after-care for her?
Are surrogates merely helping others less fortunate than themselves or are they being objectified for their ability to carry and give birth to a child? In an age when women are routinely denigrated even by health trusts (the ghastly ‘menstruators’ and so on) it is hard to believe women are being treated as a whole person, rather the possessor of the right ‘bits’ to achieve a certain goal.
- Child Sex Dolls
A Scottish man has pleaded guilty to buying a £2000 child sex doll and will be sentenced next month over this offence and the possession of over 1000 indecent images of children. His purchase was seized at East Midlands Airport in 2021.
This is apparently a growing market, but Police Scotland have been limited in their ability to stop these items entering the country as there is no specific law against possessing, buying or importing them. Customs law from 1876 prohibits the import of ‘obscene articles’ but does not define ‘obscene’, and the doll in question was imported in two sections, making it more difficult to see the ‘end product’.
Shona Craven in the National recently highlighted the work of activist Caitlin Roper whose book ‘Sex Dolls, Robots and Women-Hating: The Case for Resistance’ rejects the phrase ‘child sex doll’ in favour of the more accurate ‘child sexual abuse doll’, saying objectification of women is the foundation of men’s violence against women, that the products ‘legitimise and entrench’ sexual objectification.
Arguing that the paedophile rights movement seeks to make men the victims rather than the perpetrators, with phrases like ‘minor-attracted person’ replacing ‘paedophile’, she says there is no evidence that using dolls replaces live victims rather than inspiring them to go on to real girls, whether willing or not. It is impossible to argue that child porn (or violent adult porn) are victimless crimes. However much the ‘stars of the show’ may smile, they are forced participants.
The law often acts in a reactive rather than a proactive way. That is inevitable, but it is becoming very clear that the law in this area needs to be updated sooner rather than later to catch up and snare predatory men.
first had her show cancelled by the Stand comedy club (owned ironically by her fellow SNP MP Tommy Sheppard) because trans staff allegedly felt uneasy, then after she threatened legal action and demanded an apology the Stand backed down and admitted its decision was ‘unfair and constituted unlawful discrimination’. She had been invited by the venue in January but staff then said they were unwilling to work at the event.
It is true there is a right reserved for publicans to refuse to serve anyone they want, but this is strictly limited and if it strays into discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, it is illegal. Since when do staff get to dictate their terms to their employers?
The Co-creator of hit show Father Ted sold out a proposed show at Leith Arches before being cancelled by them as he does ‘not align with their values’. After obtaining and then losing a second venue, he eventually staged an impromptu performance outside Holyrood. He has since started legal proceedings against Leith Arches.
Former Solicitor Teresa Steele
was astounded to find she was cancelled from vital cancer surgery after demanding same-sex care at the Princess Grace Hospital in London, as her values do not align with theirs!
She had been undergoing pre-operative assessments when a nurse unconnected to her care deliberately came into her room and made prolonged eye contact. Teresa felt intimidated by this. She was sure the person was a trans male deliberately making a point.
Mass demonstrations followed and Teresa eventually got her operation, but not before her condition had worsened and she was at death’s door. Thankfully she recovered but not before being tarred as a ‘bigot’ from well-wishers who hoped she would die.
She says she has seen policy documents where ‘sex-based rights’ are changed to ‘gender-based rights’, that 109 gender identities are recognised (including ‘furries’) with policy re-written so that it no longer complies with the Equality Act and is illegal. She has been working with HCA, one of the UK’s largest private healthcare firms, which runs the Princess Grace and provides NHS services, to review its policies, but their refusal to commit to a time frame meant she has gone public.
She is well-placed to state that biological sex is real and immutable. Before she retrained as a solicitor, she was a biochemist, with degrees in immunology and forensic science, and is on pretty safe ground saying gender ideology is just a belief system, a ‘quasi-religion’.
The only weapon the aggressive lobby has in taking over women’s spaces is the fear they instil in women who may not be able to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. The lobby cannot use the law against women. Since the Forstater case the law backs gender-critical women and our right to believe biological males are not allowed in female-only spaces.
Since when do patients’ values have to align with those treating them? The NHS (England and Scotland) are still pushing rainbow lanyards and preferred pronouns on staff (both of which staff can refuse) but where are the purple, green and white lanyards showing that women who believe in science and fact will be safe in their hands?
is set to be the first transgender player in an official international cricket match. For Canada, surprise, surprise. The 29 year old who emigrated from Australia post-puberty but pre-transition can be in the team due to having reduced testosterone.
This all despite 17 peer-reviewed studies showing that post-puberty males have and retain distinct physical advantages of strength, reach and stamina. Danielle was allowed to compete in Canada’s inter-provincial tournament solely on gender self-ID. Canada apparently sees no safety issue for opposing teams fielding hits from a much stronger (male) player who can also run faster, throw the ball faster and to greater effect. Apparently one in 300 people over 15 in Canada are trans (59, 460 or 0.19%) or non-binary (41,355 or 0.14%).
Cricket is out of step with other world sports which have banned male-to-female trans athletes who have gone through puberty – World Rugby, Fina (swimming), International Rugby League, World Athletics and World Cycling. While bending over backwards to accommodate the minute numbers of trans people in Canada’s over-15 population of 30.5 million, it’s not clear whether gender-critical beliefs are even still legal there.