DENTON’S DOCUMENT

ONLY ADULTS? GOOD PRACTICES IN LEGAL GENDER RECOGNITION FOR YOUTH

A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF LAWS AND NGO ADVOCACY
IN EIGHT COUNTRIES IN EUROPE, WITH A FOCUS ON RIGHTS OF YOUNG PEOPLE

NOVEMBER 2019

IGLYO
The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO) is a network of 96 national and local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex youth and student organisations across the Council of Europe region. IGLYO’s objectives are: to build young activists; to increase the visibility and highlight the diversity of LGBTQI youth identities; make education safe and inclusive for all; and to develop and sustain an engaged and connected network of member organisations.

THOMSON REUTERS FOUNDATION
Thomson Reuters Foundation is the corporate foundation of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information services company. We work to advance media freedom, raise awareness of human rights issues, and foster more inclusive economies. Through news, media development, free legal assistance and convening initiatives, the Foundation combines its unique services to drive systemic change.

TrustLaw is the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s global pro bono legal programme, connecting the best law firms and corporate legal teams around the world with high-impact NGOs and social enterprises working to create social and environmental change. We produce ground-breaking legal research and offer innovative training courses worldwide.

DENTONS
Dentons is a polycentric law firm ranked as the world’s largest law firm by number of lawyers. Our extensive global coverage connects pro bono clients to the top-tier legal expertise wherever they need it in the world. It ultimately helps us to actively support and perform pro bono legal work aimed at making meaningful contributions to the communities in which we live and work. We also pride ourselves of the diversity of our people and the inclusiveness of our culture underlying our strong commitment to support
diversity and inclusion initiatives.

VERSION 2: ONLY ADULTS? GOOD PRACTICES IN LEGAL GENDER RECOGNITION FOR YOUTH

The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists

JAMES KIRKUP – 2 December 2019 – The Spectator

A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?

People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.

Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.

How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status.

So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?

Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.

The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.

The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. ‘We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,’ says the foreword.

As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and ‘advocacy’ across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares ‘best practice’ in ‘lobbying’ to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender.

In the words of the report:

‘It is recognised that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.’

You might think that the very purpose of parenting is, in part, to ‘restrict’ the choices of children who cannot, by definition, make fully-informed adult choices on their own. But that is not the stance of the report.

Indeed, it suggests that ‘states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’

In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.

And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?

I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.

Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:

‘While cultural and political factors play a key role in the approach to be taken, there are certain techniques that emerge as being effective in progressing trans rights in the “good practice” countries.’

Among those techniques: ‘Get ahead of the Government agenda.’

What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:

‘In many of the NGO advocacy campaigns that we studied, there were clear benefits where NGOs managed to get ahead of the government and publish progressive legislative proposal before the government had time to develop their own. NGOs need to intervene early in the legislative process and ideally before it has even started. This will give them far greater ability to shape the government agenda and the ultimate proposal than if they intervene after the government has already started to develop its own proposals.’

That will sound familiar to anyone who knows how a Commons select committee report in 2016, which adopted several positions from trans groups, was followed in 2017 by a UK government plan to adopt self-identification of legal gender. To a lot of people, that proposal, which emerged from Whitehall looking quite well-developed, came out of the blue.

Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: ‘Tie your campaign to more popular reform.’

For example:

‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’

I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is ‘difficult to win public support for’ and best hidden behind the ‘veil of protection’ provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description.

Another recommendation is even more revealing: ‘Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’

According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more ‘exposure’ this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:

‘Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.

In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.’ (Emphasis added).

Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages.

I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents.

A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them….

Revealed: the secret trans-rights lobbying operation in parliament

JAMES KIRKUP – 10 March 2021 – The Spectator

This is a story about politics and influence and openness. It’s also about the drive for trans rights and some of the people involved in that push, but in a way, that’s secondary. Because the issues involved here and the questions raised are bigger even than sex, gender and the rest. This is, in the end, about how rules and laws and policies are made, and who gets a say on that.

A lot of this story is about something called an All Party Parliamentary Group. APPGs are, as the name says, groups of MPs and peers who work together to investigate, report and campaign on a particular issue. They are not parliamentary bodies in the sense of being part of the legislature; unlike select committees, they have no constitutional status or legal powers.

Some APPGs are serious, influential outfits whose words can sway government policy. Some are little more than letterheads for political hobbyists. Most fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

Because APPGs are not formally part of parliament, they don’t get public money or resources. Many have ‘secretariats’, staff provided by people and organisations interested in the same issue as the group. Often those staff are provided by charities campaigning in the same field.

For obvious reasons, there are some pretty clear rules around the transparent functioning of the system I’ve just described. If MPs are going to get resources from outside organisations – organisations with their own agendas – to research and compile reports that could influence law and policy, it’s only right that the public know about all of this. Otherwise how confident can we be in our laws and rules, if the people who make them do so under the private influence of people and organisations motivated not by the public interest but by narrow sectional interest?

The APPG at the heart of this story is the APPG on LGBT+ Global Rights. The narrow fact of the story is that the group’s chair broke parliamentary rules on transparency by producing a report that was kept secret from the public but used to assemble a network of parliamentary support for a concerted attempt to persuade ministers to do something deeply controversial. Another, apparently unrelated fact, is that trans-rights campaign groups paid the equivalent of £80,000 to the APPG.

The wider context is of a legislative and political agenda that too often advances not by winning arguments in public but by exerting influence in private. That’s not good for democracy and, in the end, not good for the people that agenda purports to serve.

For now, let’s go back to the APPG on LGBT+ Global Rights and its secret report and lobbying operation. The context is the long, contentious Government consultation on amending the Gender Recognition Act, which began in July 2018 with proposals to make it easier for people to change their legal gender.

That consultation triggered more than two years of intense and sometimes aggressive debate around trans rights and how they interact with the legal and political rights of women that are rooted in their female biology. Some people wanted new rules to allow people to change their legal gender with little or no restriction; some other people said such a system of self-identified legal gender would infringe on rules and laws established for the benefit of women on the basis of their female biology.

That dispute helped prolong the consultation, as ministers were wary of taking a position on something so contentious.

But slowly, a government position started to emerge. In April 2020, Liz Truss, the Cabinet minister overseeing GRA reform, told a select committee that she was committed to the ‘the protection of single-sex spaces, which is extremely important.’

That was widely seen as a signal that Truss would reject calls for self-ID.

This was confirmed on 22 September 2020 when the Government formally rejected the self-ID proposals, saying it would streamline the process of changing gender but not change the criteria.

Among those unhappy about this was Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP for Reigate and Chair of that LGBT+ APPG. He triggered a Commons debate two days later, where he told Truss that her statement in April had concerned him deeply.

As a result of that statement, he said: ‘I gave this issue my full attention and that of the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights… I engaged with people who had different views to understand the compromises necessary to deliver reassurance around trans people, but also to be able to deliver trans rights. That work was done. It was given, quietly, in a comprehensive paper to the Government in early July and, tragically, it has been ignored.’

(My bold.)

That statement caught observers of this issue by surprise. The APPG had not published anything on the issue of GRA reform in July, nor made any other contribution to the debate around GRA reform. What was the ‘comprehensive paper’ that Blunt mentioned?

Some people asked Blunt and the APPG about the ‘comprehensive paper’ he had shared with ministers. In late September the APPG website was updated to add a document entitled ‘Delivering Respect and Reassurance Around Trans Equality in the UK’.

This 3,000-word paper was subtitled:

‘Proposals to guide the government’s response to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 from the officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ rights.’

It makes a number of observations and recommendations on the trans debate, several of them measured and sensible. Its main thrust is on GRA reform, arguing that it should be easier for people to change their legal gender, removing the need for medical consent.

That point was not unusual, though it was – and is – controversial. It was broadly in line with the argument made by many trans-rights groups and a lot of members of the public who responded to the GRA consultation. Many feminist campaigners, by contrast, say making it easier for male-born people to legally declare themselves female would be detrimental to women’s sex-based rights.

The content of the APPG paper is not the central issue here. What matters is the manner of that document’s creation and dissemination.

APPGs are supposed to operate under clear rules of transparency, so that the public can see and judge the actions of parliamentarians. Laws and rules that affect the public should be made in a way that is visible to us, after all.

Yet that document had been written and given – ‘quietly’ – to ministers more than two months before the public could have had any knowledge of it.

Blunt’s revelation about his quiet attempt to influence ministers led to a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone. In October, she wrote to Blunt asking him why the paper had not been published in July, in line with those APPG rules.

In response, Blunt claimed that the paper was not, in fact, covered by the APPG rules. It had been drawn up by the officers of the APPG, not the full group, he said. ‘The narrow answer to your questions is that it is as such not required to be published at all,’ Blunt told the commissioner.

He went on to explain that the paper had been part of a significant operation aimed at securing – in private – agreement between politicians of all the major parties to amend the GRA to make it easier to change gender.

The stages of this process, Blunt told the commissioner began with ‘securing the support of the officers of the group to this paper, then securing the agreement of all the political parties own LGBT groups and the principal LGBT and Trans organisations that this paper, if adopted by the Government would be a satisfactory way forward.’

He added:

“‘Through the Officers [of the APPG] it was shared with Opposition party spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition. It was my judgement that if this paper could be communicated to the Government as representing a wide collective agreement they would be more likely to adopt it as theirs, than if they were faced with a public demand around this position and be seen to be forced into accepting it. Hence privacy around this paper was an essential (I believed) part of the strategy in order not to make the adoption of this position more difficult for the Government.’

Blunt also told the Commissioner: ‘Publishing the document before the Government’s public response… would have undermined our political strategy.’

Those statements amount to a candid and striking account of an attempt to influence government policy on a highly controversial issue, by way of striking private deals among politicians over a document that was not made public.

It was also against Commons rules on transparency, in the judgement of the Commissioner. She ruled that the ‘private’ report should have been published promptly after it was shared with people outside the APPG.

The commissioner’s investigation, and her conclusion that Blunt committed a ‘less serious’ breach of Commons rules can be read here. Blunt has accepted that the rules were broken and apologised.

The Commissioner’s report also details information about the resources of Blunt’s APPG. It shows that several groups that campaign on trans rights issues gave money and resources to support the APPG’s work. Since 2019, the group has a ‘co-ordinator’ who is formally employed by the Kaleidoscope Trust, a charity, and assigned to work for the APPG. The costs of employing that person were met by Kaleidoscope from its own resources, and from campaigners including Stonewall, the UK’s biggest trans-rights group. The position is now funded by the Baring Foundation.

Correspondence from the APPG to the Parliamentary Commissioner show that between December 2019 and October 2020, the funds committed to supporting the secretariat totalled more than £80,000.

However, it is important to note that the commissioner concluded that this money did not help fund Blunt’s rule-breaking secret report. There is no suggestion that any of those funding organisations have broken any rules.

So why am I mentioning the APPG coordinator? Well, when I first heard about that private report, I was reminded of another document I wrote about here in 2019.

That document was a report published by Dentons, a law firm, and a group called the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO).

That Dentons report draws together examples of ‘best practice’ for campaigners seeking to change gender recognition laws. Based on the accounts of campaign groups in several countries including the UK, it advises others seeking to advance the cause of gender self-identification how best to proceed.

Among the advice the Dentons/IGLYO document offers campaigners is to ‘get ahead of the government’, to tie trans-rights objectives to the more popular issue of gay equality and, above all, to ‘avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’

As I wrote at the time about that Dentons/IGYLO report, it is a remarkable and revealing document that helps explain the extremely rapid advances that trans-rights campaigns have made in many political arenas in recent years.

It could also be a template for the rule-breaking ‘political strategy’ employed by Crispin Blunt and the APPG for Global LGBT+ Rights. In a further striking coincidence, the APPG’s Kaleidoscope-employed coordinator is Anna Robinson, who was from 2017 to 2019 the co-chair of IGYLO.

What does this story tell us? It’s more evidence that some people who campaign for trans rights policies make a deliberate choice to do so in private settings, where the wider public cannot know or assess their arguments…

Campaigners for gender recognition law ‘should avoid media’

MICHAEL CROSS – 20 November 2019 – The Law Society Gazette

Campaigners to change the law to allow children to change their legal gender should ‘avoid excessive press coverage and exposure’ according to an international survey singling out the UK for criticism. Only adults? Good Practices for Legal Gender Recognition for Youth, is the result of a collaboration between international firm Dentons, the Thomson Reuters Foundation and an international pressure group IGLYO to mark Transgender Awareness Week. 

The report examines laws governing gender recognition, with a focus on young people, in Norway, Malta, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Portugal and the UK. It classifies Belgium, Malta and Norway as ‘good practice countries’ and the remaining five as comparators. The UK is the only one of the eight not to have adopted ‘self-determination-based gender identity recognition’. 

In what the report calls the ‘most progressive countries’ individuals can elect to change their legal gender without the need for medical diagnoses or court determination. Norway is the most liberal, with legal gender recognition being available at any age, although with conditions for different age groups. For example, minors under the age of 6 can have their legal gender altered only if they are intersex. 

By contrast, in the UK,’ trans people must endure a lengthy, complex and expensive process to have the opportunity to change their legal gender’. The requirement under the Gender Recognition Act for two years of ‘lived experience’ puts young people at a particular disadvantage, the report states. It warns campaigners of a ‘trans-hostile’ cultural climate, saying that ‘many mainstream and right-wing media outlets have given platforms to the voices of trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), a term coined by a journalist at the Guardian’.

‘These voices normally come from women’s groups who express concern over streamlining the process for legal gender recognition,’ the report states. ‘Their concerns largely include female prisoners and female public toilets.’ 

Groups campaigning for Norway-style laws should target the youth wings of political parties and ‘de-medicalise’ the issue, the report recommends. In Norway, it notes, the law changed after youth politicians ‘brought up the issue at every meeting of any sort – even ones which were not directly relevant, to ensure the issue was at the forefront of everyone’s minds.’

The report says that it does not necessarily reflect the personal views of any of the lawyers, staff or clients of Dentons, Thomson Reuters Foundation or other lawyers who contributed. ..

Dentons goes bashful over transgender children campaign

4 January 2020 – The Law Society Gazette

Back in November, global giant Dentons was keen to talk about its pro bono work on the legal rights of transgender young people. It teamed up with the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO), a network of 92 advocacy groups, to publish a guide for campaigners called ‘Only Adults? Good Practices in Legal Gender Recognition for Youth’. 

The guide, covered in the Gazette on 20 November, caused a bit of a stir. Commentators in The Spectator and Times were especially exercised by its call for states to abolish the minimum age for legal recognition of a new gender, and its recommendation that campaigners should seek a ‘veil of protection’ by tying in with more popular reforms while limiting press coverage and exposure.  

But when Obiter set out this week to revisit the report, neither it nor a covering press release published on 19 November was anywhere to be seen on Dentons’ website. The press release list now jumps from an 18 November announcement celebrating the firm’s role in the the sale of Zajączkowo Wind Farm to 22 November and the hiring of a former US ambassador to Spain.

Likewise, the website has no mention of what, in November, was billed as the ‘ongoing pro bono relationship with IGLYO, which started in 2018’. Luckily the Only Adults? report, with its credit to Dentons, is available directly from IGLYO. 

A Dentons spokesperson said: ‘We do not currently have any open pro bono matters for IGLYO, but we are open to potential pro bono cooperation in the future.’

That Denton’s Document

@STILLTish – 23 July 2020 – https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/

Primary Sources.

This document sets out the strategy for advancing Transgender Rights across Europe, with a specific focus on young people.

You can find the 65 page document on-line here Link

I attach a version which I downloaded in December 2019. IGLYO_v3-1.  I notice there is another version. I attach both, in case of any changes, IGLYO_v3-1 2

Astro-Turfing

The introduction flags up the Corporate backing for this, allegedly, marginalised minority.  The world’s largest law firm and a global foundation are writing strategy documents to embed Gender Identity ideology, in law.  This has all the hallmarks  of astro-turfing; which  is when a well funded, social engineering, project is presented as an organic, grassroots campaign. In reality Transgender Ideology is backed by significant funding.  You can read more on this phenomenon  here

And now Google are interfering. Jo Bartoch Article here.

Another relevant piece, by  Jennifer Bilek, lifts the veil on the rich & powerful men driving Transgender Ideology. here

These are the organisations providing pro-bono support for the report under consideration.  Thomson Reuters Foundation and the largest Legal Firm in the world.

Dissenting Voices from the LGB & I

The report is on behalf of a group of 96 organisations, who claim to speak for LGBTQI youth across the Council of Europe region.

In the U.K, we now have a breakaway group, LGB Alliance, who do not feel their interests are served by mainstream LGBTQI organisations. These organisations reject the notion of biological sex /sexual dimorphism thereby making it difficult/impossible,  to defend sexual orientation. Exhibit A:  Stonewall UK have, as an Ambassador,  a bearded male who claims to be a Lesbian.  See Alex Drummond. 

It is also worth noting the letter I, in LGBTQI, claims to represent Intersex people.  These are people with Disorders/Differences of Sexual Development.  Many of this community also resent their medical condition being co-opted as an “identity”, by the rainbow alliance. 

To hear more of these dissident voices you can read about LGB Alliance here

You can follow an intersex advocate’s blog here

U.K. Named & Anonymous Backers

To return to the Denton’s document. It outlines the progress in establishing transgender rights across European countries. Here’s  who is involved in the U.K. Note that one of the organisations didn’t even want their name to be made public. The other one already accesses state funding.

Mosaic received funding from the Government Equality Office for a project working to stop homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying in schools.  You can find this information in the accounts submitted to the Charity Commission.

A quick check on their timeline shows a devotion to the Trans Advocacy lobby group Mermaids.  #PinkNews #Stonewall #ProudTrust also figure prominently.  Mosaic Youth Trust are  enthusiastic advocates for medical intervention, for children, even using an emotive appeal from a  trans identified child.

Twitter account  @TheMosaicTrust.  Their Website

There are very few public resources available on their twitter timeline or  website.  This, I find, is one of the more disturbing aspects of many of these smaller charities. No public access to resources that are going into our schools!  The Denton’s document proffers an explanation for this secrecy, which I will get to…

Introduction

The introduction was written by a well known Trans Activist based in the UK.

You can read more about this activist here.  Identifies as non-binary.  In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual.  As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable.  Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the [rainbow image] and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.

Mentioning the fact  biological sex exists is now  a “transphobic dog whistle”.  

Legislation by stealth

The two admissions in this next paragraph are crucial to understanding how so much has happened without people, particularly women, marshalling our resources to resist. Most of us didn’t know there was a new threat to women’s rights wearing  Joseph’s technicolour raincoat. We were too busy attending Pride marches and gleefully singing #BornThisWay.  While we were singing Lady Gaga there was a new Gaga Lyric in town #BornInTheWrong Body. Here are some of the strategies recommended. Pass legislation “under the radar”, “latch…onto more popular legal reforms”.  This tactic has served them well.  Note that Ireland passed legislation around Gender Recognition before it legalised abortion. Malta still has not legalised abortion but it does allow self-identification of “Gender”.

For Trans Activists the failure, in Ireland, to lower the age for Legal Gender Recognition is seen as a warning against compromise.  The stage is set for a new offensive. Note that the age for gender recognition is also under review in Scotland, who seem minded to implement the more controversial of reforms.  This legislation is also under review in England and  Wales which appears to be heading in a different direction. However, there is no room for complacency.

The role of education & attacks on parental rights

Below is a snippet on Tactics picked up from Portugal.  First make sure you train teachers.  Get the teachers on board with gettin rid of sex segregated toilets.

The inculcation of gender ideology is well underway in the UK.  Many parents are now discovering this with recent publicity on School Transgender policies. (Quite a few of which have been withdrawn as parents protest about their contents). The Denton’s dossier is a full frontal attack on parental protective responsibilities. Here is a thread I did on those school Transgender guidance packs, specifically how they seek to undermine parental responsibility.  Thread

Here a few examples of how parents are referred to in numerous school packs on Transgender pupils.

Another common tactic is to talk about “minors” say you mean 16-18. Then switch to “child”. Talk a lot about a child’s legal rights and their autonomy. This is another attack on parental responsibility. As is made more explicit. They want Parental Consent to be over-ridden

Here are some quotes about parents in the document under consideration here:

These excerpts are even more disturbing. Mandating state action against parents advocating for “watch and wait” rather than medical intervention. It is factually true ,historically, some jurisdictions enforced sterilisation clauses prior to undergoing Sexual Reassignment surgery.  These clauses have rightly been removed. However we have not eliminated this for young people. Children put on Puberty Blockers, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones, they will not have a puberty and will be rendered infertile.

Norway allows legal gender recognition for six year olds. For now (?) this is restricted to children with disorders of sexual development.  It is possible that I am overly cynical /hyper-vigilant about why these kids are being housed under the Transgender Umbrella. They are not “transgender” kids, however, could their status be hijacked to campaign for Gender recognition of  6 year olds. Even if they are not “intersex” but do believe they are born in the wrong body?

De-medicalising the process or Medicalising it?

Another aspect of the coverage deemed problematic is the focus on medicalising Gender Identity. This is  deemed unhelpful.  The problem identified in this quote exposes a central contradiction in trans ideology. For adults there is a push to de-medicalise the process for self-identification of your “gender”. For children there is a push to medicalise them. Here it is claimed that UK voices are simply “confused”.

The debate is confused.  Not, however,  on the Gender Critical side. It is reflective of an internal contradiction on the Trans Activist side.

The penis retention status of so many Trans-identifies males has not escaped the attention of U.K. females. Indeed the phrase suck on my  dick appears with unfailing regularity in responses to inconvenient women.  Had the esteemed authors of this report consulted women they would have known the deployment of the penis, by our wannabe sisters, was a strategic fail. Documented here Peak Trans

Here is a direct focus on the “highly problematic” system of separate toilets for girls/women and boys/men:

 Given the history of women’s fight to have safe public bathroom facilities this is a direct attack on the rights of women and girls.   Note the vehicle for grooming our children to accept this is Teachers.

This is what the frequent “we just want to pee“ is really about:

The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women.  The document doesn’t shy away from  using a slur associated with threats of rape and violence (Terf) . It goes on to draw the conclusion that press coverage is problematic. The lesson to be learned is that the freedom of the press has created a divisive issue.  In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.

Women are labelled “trans-hostile” because we are not giving up sex based rights without a fight. These are existing rights enshrined in Law, by a Labour government, but the document suggests only the right wing media are raising it. By extension, it implies,  it’s only right wing women who have an issue with it.  (The uber left wing Morning Star is one of the papers that has tried to provide coverage for these non-compliant women).

The preferred campaign strategy is to provide human interest stories but, the document claims, the current atmosphere is so hostile they are unable to do so.  The Guardian and the BBC, Teen Vogue, Pink News, Independent, Mirror, Sun, Telegraph appear not to have received the memo. Coverage of “trans kids” is ubiquitous.  This is a strategic. By deploying children it de-sexualises motives for transition  and helps persuade people that the trans community are a vulnerable community.

Another way  this strategy has been deployed, in the UK, is the many Trans Activists who  refuse to appear, along side feminists, to debate any issues.  The series on Radio 4 Women’s hour was notable for the number of Trans Activists who would only provide pre-recorded discussions, rather then debate the issues with feminists. Example here

The above is laughably poor research into the actual profiling of young trans people in the British media. A quick search brings up masses  of coverage of Young Trans Children. There  was a seemingly endless parade of “transgender kids” on British Media.  There are loads of celebratory tales of young “transgender” children.  Here’s an entire documentary by Victoria Derbyshire. Transgender Kids. 

The Children’s BBC programme “I am Leo” was broadcast directly to our kids on CBBC. I presume this was just in case the home schooled had missed out on Transgender Indoctrination. The documentary follows a young female as she embarks on medicalisation to cement her male Gender Identity. Below is a clip of he Director of the U.K’s premier Gender Identity Clinic, who appeared on I am Leo. Juxtaposed with a contemporary statement , somewhat at odds with what our children were told.

The language of Human Rights advocacy is deeply embedded in the propagation of this ideology. Women’s rights to privacy and dignity has been trampled underfoot which underlines the depressing realisation that we are not considered human.  Access to women’s sex segregated spaces is now badged a human rights issue for male bodied “women”.

Of course anyone who is trans-identified should have human rights.  The women fighting for our sex based rights are not trying to strip rights away from any male who is a refugee from his sex.  The rights we are asserting are existing rights, in law, to allow women to act as a political class to defend women’s, sex based, rights.

Watching the naivete of young, female, politicians who are throwing away women’s rights I think they need to read this document and consider if they are being played.  The young politicians are being targeted. The senior, older, politicians, don’t want to lose the youth vote so are letting them lead the way.

Another tactic is to make sure activists get ahead of the politicians. It’s a new area and fraught with political banana skins. What better way to avoid a slip. Outsource your opinions to Lobby groups. They are more than happy to oblige. It’s a great strategy…

Dentons campaigns for kids to switch gender without parental approval

JAMIE HAMILTON – 29 November 2019 – https://www.rollonfriday.com/

Children should be allowed to change their legal gender without the involvement of medical professionals or parents, says Dentons, and the state should take “action” against parents who attempt to intervene.

The recommendations are contained in a report produced by the firm which its authors describe as a “powerful tool for activists”.

“Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth” advises campaigners to be secretive about the changes they are lobbying to put into law.

The document was written by staff from the firm in conjunction with Thomson Reuters Foundation and LGBT pressure group IGLYO. Its authors include several Dentons trainees and Lamin Khadar, the firm’s Pro Bono Manager. A disclaimer states that it “does not necessarily reflect the personal views of any of the lawyers, staff or clients of Dentons”.

Mosaic, an LGBT youth group, contributed to the UK portion of the report, as did an unidentified NGO which “wished to remain anonymous”.

The report takes as its basis the assumption that everyone has a ‘gender identity’, which is defined by LGBT charity Stonewall as a person’s “innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth”. 

Critics say gender identity does not exist other than as a theory. They argue that the concept reinforces male and female stereotypes, because the only way a person can conclude that they have a gender identity which doesn’t correspond to their sex is by reference to external gender norms.

Dentons’ report states that every child has an accurate conception of their own gender identity which they should be entitled to affirm in law without impediment. “The right to legal gender recognition is crucial for young trans persons to secure all other rights”, it states, advising that the UK should “eliminate the minimum age requirement” at which children can change their legal gender “on their own volition, without the need for medical diagnoses or court determination”. The document emphasises that there should be “no eligibility criteria, such as medical or psychological interventions”.

And UK authorities should “take action” against parents “who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorization when required”.

---

---

Opponents claim that this radical ‘affirmation’ approach increases the likelihood of sending confused children on a life-changing medical pathway of puberty blockers and irreversible surgery, which they may come to regret.

Dentons’ report states that it is “crucial” that there are “no limitations” to “gender confirmation treatment”, including “no requirement to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria”.

At the same time, in a section on tactics, the report advises activists to “de-medicalise” their campaigns “so that legal gender recognition can be seen in the eyes of the public as distinct from gender confirmation treatments”. It explains that this is because one of the reasons opponents often cite for “denying such access to minors” is the view that “young people should not have irreversible surgeries until they are of the age of maturity”.

Campaigners are also warned to “avoid excessive press coverage and exposure”, because the “general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise”. It describes how activists in Ireland “have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue”. Chances of success are increased if activists “target youth politicians” who in successful campaigns elsewhere in Europe ‘brought up the issue at every meeting of any sort – even ones which were not directly relevant, to ensure the issue was at the forefront of everyone’s minds.”

The report describes how sterilisation of trans people was once a concern in Norway, and that Norwegian campaigners gained traction by arguing that the human rights of trans people were therefore being breached. Although sterilisation is not an issue in the UK, the report advises activists to nonetheless “use human rights as a campaign point” because of the “political stigma of a human rights violation”. Activists are also advised to “tie your campaign to more popular reform”, using it as a “veil of protection”.

Critics of gender self-ID have warned that it will adversely impact women and children in many areas, including rape crisis centres, single-sex hospital wards, women’s sport and identification of discrimination. Dentons’ 65-page report characterises their position in two sentences, as concerns which “normally come from women’s groups” about “female prisoners and female public toilets”.

Dentons’ report also describes critics of gender self-ID as ‘TERFs’, which began as an acronym for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” and is understood by many of its targets as a misogynist slur.

When it was asked to comment on aspects of its report, Dentons initially offered up Atanas Politov, its Director for Pro Bono, for an interview. Then it asked for written questions in advance. When these were provided, the world’s largest firm by headcount was unable to find anyone prepared to answer them, and gave a general statement instead.

“This report was prepared on a pro bono basis”, said Dentons, …

The Coercive, Surreptitious Transgender Legal Agenda

MADELEINE KEARNS – 2 December 2019 – National Review

James Kirkup has an important piece over at the Spectator, looking at how transgenderism has “taken hold in so many places so swiftly.”

Kirkup examines a document produced by Dentons, an organization that describes itself as the world’s biggest law firm. The document, entitled “Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth,” is “a handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations,” according to Kirkup.

In relation to gender laws and policies targeting children, Kirkup highlights some quotes from the document.

• It is recognized that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.
• States should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorization when required.
• While cultural and political factors play a key role in the approach to be taken, there are certain techniques that emerge as being effective in progressing trans rights in the “good practice” countries.

 [Emphasis added]

 Kirkup asks what it might mean when the authors list “get ahead of the government agenda” as one of these “certain techniques.”

From the document:

In many of the NGO advocacy campaigns that we studied, there were clear benefits where NGOs managed to get ahead of the government and publish progressive legislative proposal before the government had time to develop their own. NGOs need to intervene early in the legislative process and ideally before it has even started. This will give them far greater ability to shape the government agenda and the ultimate proposal than if they intervene after the government has already started to develop its own proposals.

[Emphasis added]

Notably, the authors recommend using “marriage equality,” an issue which “was strongly supported” as a “veil of protection” for gender identity which “remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.”

Strikingly, the authors of the document then suggest “another technique which has been used to great effect” as being “the limitation of press coverage and exposure.”

But why do they want to limit press “coverage and exposure”? What are they so keen to hide?

Kirkup summarizes this highly concerning and “unusual” document:

A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them.

So if you were wondering how the transgender agenda has been so effective so quickly — this is the answer: Highly skilled and wealthy lobbyists have strategically maintained the ignorance of the general public, largely through media obfuscation and omission, while pursuing a comprehensive, covert and coercive legal strategy.

Read the document — see for yourself. This is not a conservative conspiracy. This is transgender activists in their own words. 

The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (SSI)

JENNIFER BILEK – 15 June 2022 – Tablet

One of the most powerful yet unremarked-upon drivers of our current wars over definitions of gender is a concerted push by members of one of the richest families in the United States to transition Americans from a dimorphic definition of sex to the broad acceptance and propagation of synthetic sex identities (SSI). Over the past decade, the Pritzkers of Illinois, who helped put Barack Obama in the White House and include among their number former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, current Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and philanthropist Jennifer Pritzker, appear to have used a family philanthropic apparatus to drive an ideology and practice of disembodiment into our medical, legal, cultural, and educational institutions.

I first wrote about the Pritzkers, whose fortune originated in the Hyatt hotel chain, and their philanthropy directed toward normalizing what people call “transgenderism” in 2018. I have since stopped using the word “transgenderism” as it has no clear boundaries, which makes it useless for communication, and have instead opted for the term SSI, which more clearly defines what some of the Pritzkers and their allies are funding—even as it ignores the biological reality of “male” and “female” and “gay” and “straight.”

The creation and normalization of SSI speaks much more directly to what is happening in American culture, and elsewhere, under an umbrella of human rights. With the introduction of SSI, the current incarnation of the LGBTQ+ network—as distinct from the prior movement that fought for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and which ended in 2020 with Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that LGBTQ+ is a protected class for discrimination purposes—is working closely with the techno-medical complex, big banks, international law firms, pharma giants, and corporate power to solidify the idea that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species—which contradicts reality and the fundamental premises not only of “traditional” religions but of the gay and lesbian civil rights movements and much of the feminist movement, for which sexual dimorphism and resulting gender differences are foundational premises.

Through investments in the techno-medical complex, where new highly medicalized sex identities are being conjured, Pritzkers and other elite donors are attempting to normalize the idea that human reproductive sex exists on a spectrum. These investments go toward creating new SSI using surgeries and drugs, and by instituting rapid language reforms to prop up these new identities and induce institutions and individuals to normalize them. In 2018, for example, at the Ronald Reagan Medical Center at the University of California Los Angeles (where the Pritzkers are major donors and hold various titles), the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology advertised several options for young females who think they can be men to have their reproductive organs removed, a procedure termed “gender-affirming care.”

The Pritzkers became the first American family to have a medical school bear its name in recognition of a private donation when it gave $12 million to the University of Chicago School of Medicine in 1968. In June 2002, the family announced an additional gift of $30 million to be invested in the University of Chicago’s Biological Sciences Division and School of Medicine. These investments provided the family with a bridgehead into the world of academic medicine, which it has since expanded in pursuit of a well-defined agenda centered around SSI. Also in 2002, Jennifer Pritzker founded the Tawani Foundation, which has since provided funding to Howard Brown Health and Rush Memorial Medical Center in Chicago, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Foundation Fund, and the University of Minnesota’s Institute for Sexual and Gender Health, all of which provide some version of “gender care.” In the case of the latter, “clients” include “gender creative children as well as transgender and gender non-conforming adolescents …”

In 2012, J.B. Pritzker and his wife, M.K. Pritzker, worked with The Bridgespan Group—a management consultant to nonprofits and philanthropists—to develop a long-term strategy for the J.B and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation. Their work together included conducting research on developments in the field of early childhood education, to which the foundation committed $25 million.

Ever since, a motivating and driving force behind the Pritzkers’ familywide commitment to SSI has been J.B.’s cousin Jennifer (born James) Pritzker—a retired lieutenant colonel in the Illinois Army National Guard and the father of three children. In 2013, around the time gender ideology reached the level of mainstream American culture, Jennifer Pritzker announced a transition to womanhood. Since then, Pritzker has used the Tawani Foundation to help fund various institutions that support the concept of a spectrum of human sexes, including the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the Williams Institute UCLA School of Law, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Palm Military Center, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), and many others. Tawani Enterprises, the private investment counterpart to the philanthropic foundation, invests in and partners with Squadron Capital LLC, a Chicago-based private investment vehicle that acquires a number of medical device companies that manufacture instruments, implants, cutting tools, and injection molded plastic products for use in surgeries. As in the case of Jon Stryker, founder of the LGBT mega-NGO Arcus Foundation, it is hard to avoid the impression of complementarity between Jennifer Pritzker’s for-profit medical investments and philanthropic support for SSI.

Pritzker also helps fund the University of Minnesota National Center for Gender Spectrum Health, which claims “the gender spectrum is inclusive of the wide array of gender identities beyond binary definitions of gender—inclusive of cisgender and transgender identities, gender queer, and nonbinary identities as a normal part of the natural expression of gender. Gender spectrum health is the healthy, affirmed, positive development of a gender identity and expression that is congruent with the individual’s sense of self.” The university, where Pritzker has served on the Leadership Council for the Program in Human Sexuality, provides “young adult gender services” in the medical school’s Institute for Sexual and Gender Health.

Pritzker’s philanthropy is also active in Canada, where Jennifer has helped fund the University of Toronto’s Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, a teaching institution invested in the deconstruction of human sex. An instructor in the Bonham Centre and the curator of its Sexual Representation Collection—“Canada’s largest archival collection of pornography”—is transgender studies professor Nicholas Matte, who denies categorically that sexual dimorphism exists. Pritzker also created the first chair in transgender studies at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. The current chair, Aaron Devor, founded an annual conference called Moving Trans History Forward, whose keynote speaker in 2016 was the renowned transhumanist, Martine Rothblatt, who was mentored by the transhumanist Ray Kurzweil of Google. Rothblatt lectured there on the value of creating an organization such as WPATH to serve “tech transgenders” in the cultivation of “tech transhumanists.” (Rothblatt’s ideology of disembodiment and technological religion seems to be having nearly as much influence on American culture as Sirius satellite radio, which Rothblatt co-founded.) Rothblatt is an integral presence at Out Leadership, a business networking arm of the LGBTQ+ movement, and appears to believe that “we are making God as we are implementing technology that is ever more all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful, and beneficent.”

We are making God as we are implementing technology that is ever more all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful, and beneficent.Share

→︎TwitterFacebookEmailPrintLink

Copied link

For-profit medical corporations and nonprofit institutions that intersect with the goliath LGBT NGO infrastructure, many of which receive Pritzker funding, have created a political scaffolding to engineer the institutionalization of SSI ideology and medical practice in the United States—solidifying the concept of people being born in wrongly sexed bodies or wrongly being born in sexed bodies at all. At least two clinics in California are now providing nonbinary surgeries and nullification surgeries for individuals who feel both male and female, or like neither.

The Gender Multispeciality Service (GeMS) at Boston Children’s Hospital, “the first major program in the U.S. to focus on gender-diverse and transgender adolescents,” was founded in 2007. “Since that time,” says the GeMS website, “we have expanded our program to welcome patients from ages 3 to 25.” The first such clinic for children in the Midwest, the Gender & Sex Development Program at Lurie Children’s Hospital, opened in Chicago in 2013 with a $500,000-$1 million gift pledge from Pritzker. (The husband of Jean “Gigi” Pritzker, another cousin, sits on Lurie’s board of directors.) The Gender Mapping Project estimates that there are now thousands of similar “gender clinics” around the world, and over 400 that offer to medically manipulate the sex of children.

Like Stryker’s Arcus Foundation, the Pritzkers have forged a close relationship with the psychiatric establishment. The Pritzker Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at Lurie was launched with a $15 million gift from the Pritzker Foundation in 2019, and received another $6.45 million in 2022 to address “concerns about mental health consequences for children and adolescents arising from the COVID pandemic.” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Jennifer’s cousin, signed into law SB 2085, Coverage of the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model (CoCM)—the American Psychiatric Association’s model legislation requiring private insurers and Medicaid in Illinois to cover CPT codes for CoCM, which “requires a primary care (or other) physician or clinician to lead a team that includes a behavioral health care manager who checks in with patients at least once a month and an off-site psychiatric consultant who regularly reviews patients’ progress and offers advice.”

Jeanne Pritzker, married to J.B.’s brother Anthony, who is Jennifer’s cousin, is a training psychologist at UCLA where she and her husband established the Anthony and Jeanne Pritzker Family Scholarship to support medical students at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. Mrs. Pritzker is a member of the Board of Visitors at the Geffen School, which is affiliated with a children’s hospital named after Mattel—the multinational toy company that debuted a “transgender Barbie” recently made in the likeness of the actor Laverne Cox.

On June 30, 2019, Gov. Pritzker issued Executive Order 19-11, titled Strengthening Our Commitment to Affirming and Inclusive Schools, to welcome and support children with manufactured sex identities. A task force was established to outline statewide criteria for schools and teachers that recommended districts amend their school board policies “to strengthen protections for transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.”

In August 2021, Gov. Pritzker signed into law a new sex education bill for all public schools in Illinois, the first of its kind designed in accordance with the second edition of the National Sex Education Standards (NSES) to update sex ed curricula in K-12 schools. Bill SB0 818 will be implemented on or before Aug. 1, 2022. Though the bill includes a written opt-out for parents (but not an alternative if they do opt-out), many are concerned with the material being brought into children’s schools under the auspices of teaching them sexual health—namely gender identity ideology and other related material.

FROM THE NATIONAL SEX EDUCATION STANDARDS

FROM THE NATIONAL SEX EDUCATION STANDARDS

FROM THE NATIONAL SEX EDUCATION STANDARDS

FROM THE NATIONAL SEX EDUCATION STANDARDS

The NSES manual was crafted by The Future of Sex Education Initiative (FoSE) and funded by the Grove Foundation, which in turn has also worked with the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (of Hewlett-Packard fortune) and Ford Foundation to institute Working to Institutionalize Sex Education (WISE)—“A national initiative that supports school districts in implementing sex education”—throughout the country. The Bridgespan Group, which assisted the Pritzkers with their philanthropic trajectory in 2012, was retained by the Packard Foundation to review its collaborative efforts across its investment portfolio and to report on a series of case studies, including the WISE initiative.

FoSE is a collaboration between three other organizations: The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (Siecus), “a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to affirming that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of life”; Advocates for Youth, “partnering with youth leaders, adult allies, and youth-serving organizations to advocate for policies and champion programs that recognize young people’s rights to honest sexual health information”; and Answer, “which provides and promotes unfettered access to comprehensive sexuality education for young people.” Each of these is also funded by the Grove Foundation, whose fortune comes from the now-deceased Andrew Grove, former CEO of Intel Corporation.

FoSE has created a “scaffolding approach” to teaching kids about sex in public schools and teaching them very young. Its credo is that “not only are younger children able to discuss sexuality-related issues but that the early grades may, in fact, be the best time to introduce topics related to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, gender equality, and social justice related to the LGBTQ community before hetero- and cisnormative values and assumptions become more deeply ingrained and less mutable.”

Critics of the NSES standards created by the FoSE collaborative and now being implemented in Illinois under Gov. Pritzker may have concerns about a 72-page manual in which the term “anal sex” comes up 10 times and the word “intimacy” only half as often. The word “gender,” for what it’s worth, is used 270 times.

While many Americans are still trying to understand why women are being erased in language and law, and why children are being taught they can choose their sex, the Pritzker cousins and others may be well on their way to engineering a new way to be human. But what could possibly explain the abrupt drive of wealthy elites to deconstruct who and what we are and to manipulate children’s sex characteristics in clinics now spanning the globe while claiming new rights for those being deconstructed? Perhaps it is profit. Perhaps it is the pleasure of seeing one’s own personal obsessions writ large. Perhaps it is the human temptation to play God. No matter what the answer is, it seems clear that SSI will be an enduring part of America’s future.

Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?

JENNIFER BILEK – 20 February 2018 – The Federalist

As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.

I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.

Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.

These elements, along with media saturation of the issue, had me wondering: Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing? This article can only begin to graze the surface of this question, but considering transgenderism has basically exploded in the middle of capitalism, which is notorious for subsuming social justice movements, there is value in beginning this examination.

Who Is Funding the Transgender Movement?

I found exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender); George Soros; Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay man); Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations, including corporations.

Separating transgender issues from LGBT infrastructure is not an easy task. All the wealthiest donors have been funding LGB institutions before they became LGBT-oriented, and only in some instances are monies earmarked specifically for transgender issues. Some of these billionaires fund the LGBT through their myriad companies, multiplying their contributions many times over in ways that are also difficult to track.

These funders often go through anonymous funding organizations such as Tides Foundation, founded and operated by Pike. Large corporations, philanthropists, and organizations can send enormous sums of money to the Tides Foundation, specify the direction the funds are to go, and have the funds get to their destination anonymously. Tides Foundation creates a legal firewall and tax shelter for foundations and funds political campaigns, often using legally dubious tactics.

These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million. From 2003-2013, reported funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.

$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?

Transgenderism: A New Medical and Lifestyle Market

It seems obvious now to look at the money behind transgenderism. Many new markets have opened because of it. The first gender clinic for children opened in Boston in 2007. In the past ten years, more than 30 clinics for children with purported gender dysphoria have arisen in the United States alone, the largest serving 725 patients.

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in transgender medical infrastructure across the United States and world to “treat” transgender people. In addition to gender clinics proliferating across the United States, hospital wings are being built for specialized surgeries, and many medical institutions are clamoring to get on board with the new developments.

Doctors are being trained in cadaver symposiums across the world in all manner of surgeries related to transgender individuals, including phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery, urethral procedures, and more. More and more American corporations are covering transgender surgeries, drugs, and other expenses. Endocrinologists seeking the fountain of youth in hormones for more than a generation, and the subsequent earnings for marketing those hormones, are still on a quest for gold.

Puberty blockers are another growing market. The plastic surgery arm of medicine is staged for an infusion of cash as well as organ transplants, especially womb transplants for men identifying as women who may want future pregnancies. These surgeries are already being practiced on animals and the first successful womb implant from a deceased female donor to another female has already been a success. Biogenetics is poised to be the investment of the future, says Rothblatt, who has headed a massive pharmaceutical corporation and is now heavily invested in biogenetics and transplants.

Transgenderism has certainly made its way into the American marketplace, so it seems important to consider the implications of this as we pass laws regarding transgender individuals’ and our civil liberties. Transgenderism sits square in the middle of the medical industrial complex, which is by some estimates even bigger than the military industrial complex.

With the medical infrastructure being built, doctors being trained for various surgeries, clinics opening at warp speed, and the media celebrating it, transgenderism is poised for growth. The LGB, a once-tiny group of people trying to love those of the same sex openly and be treated equally within society, has likely already been subsumed by capitalism and is now infiltrated by the medical industrial complex via transgenderism.

Who Works to Institutionalize Transgender Ideology?

Much more important than funds going directly to the LGBT lobby and organizations, only a fraction of which trickles down to assist people who identify as transgender, is the money invested by the men mentioned above, governments, and technology and pharmaceutical corporations to institutionalize and normalize transgenderism as a lifestyle choice. They are shaping the narrative about transgenderism and normalizing it within the culture using their funding methods.

This can hardly be a coincidence when the very thing absolutely essential to those transitioning are pharmaceuticals and technology.

This article will use the Pritzker family as a case study, both to reduce length and because they are emblematic of how this works. Those funding trans organizations and normalizing transgenderism are channeling funds in the same ways and invested in the same medical infrastructure. This can hardly be a coincidence when the very thing absolutely essential to those transitioning are pharmaceuticals and technology. It is also important to note that though the trans lobby has sewn itself to the LGB umbrella, LGB people as such are not lifelong medical patients.

The Pritzkers are an American family of philanthropic billionaires worth approximately $29 billion, whose fortune was gestated by Hyatt Hotels and nursing homes. They now have massive investments in the medical industrial complex.

Examining just a few of the Pritzkers in this article will give you some indication of their reach and influence as a family, especially as regards the transgender project and their relationship to the medical industrial complex. As you read, remember, transitioning individuals are medical patients for life and the Pritzker family are not an anomaly in their funding trajectory or investments in the medical-industrial complex.

Jennifer Pritzker

Once a family man and a decorated member of the armed forces, Jennifer Pritzker now identifies as transgender. He has made transgenderism a high note in philanthropic funding through his Tawani Foundation. He is one of the largest contributors to transgender causes and, with his family, an enormous influence in the rapid institutionalization of transgenderism.

Some of the organizations Jennifer owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions. Pritzker owns Squadron Capital, an acquisitions corporation, with a focus on medical technology, medical devices, and orthopedic implants, and the Tawani Foundation, a philanthropic organization with a grants focus on Gender & Human Sexuality.

Pritzker sits on the leadership council of the Program of Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota, to which he also committed $6.5 million over the past decade. Among many other organizations and institutions Pritzker funds are Lurie Children’s Hospital, a medical center for gender non-conforming children, serving 400 children in Chicago; the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago; a chair of transgender studies at the University of Victoria (the first of its kind); and the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto. He also funds the American Civil Liberties Union and his family funds Planned Parenthood, two significant organizations for institutionalizing female-erasing language and support for transgender causes. Planned Parenthood also recently decided to get into the transgender medical market.

Jennifer Pritzker funds strategically, as does his family, by giving to universities that become beholden to his ideology, whose students go on to spread gender ideology by writing pro-trans articles in medical journals and elsewhere. Jennifer’s uncle and aunt, John and Lisa Pritzker, gave $25 million to the University of California at San Francisco for a center of children’s psychiatry. Jennifer likewise funds hospitals and medical schools where the alumni go on to create transgender specialties and LGBT medical centers, even though lesbians, gays, and bisexuals don’t need specialized medical services.

Here are just several current activities of Pritzker-funded medical school alumni and recipients of Pritzker money.

• James Hekman founded the LGBT medical care center in Lakewood Ohio.
• David T. Rubin sits on the advisory board of Accordant/CVS Caremark, the largest pharmaceutical chain in the United States. CVS acquired Target department stores’ pharmacies in 2015. Target, of course, is the site of a major social controversy about unisex bathrooms and is a corporate funder of the trans-pushing Human Rights Campaign activist group.
• Loren Schecter is the author of the first surgical atlas for transgender surgery, author of pro-trans journals, was awarded for legal advocacy of transgenders, performs reconstructive surgeries, and is director of transfeminine conferences sponsored by World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). He also performs reconstructive surgeries at Weiss Memorial Hospital in Chicago.
• Schecter is also the “surgeons only sessions chair” on the Scientific Program Committee of the newly formed United States arm of WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health), USPATH, holding conferences in Los Angeles for surgeons in transgender surgeries.
• Robert Garofalo, a gay man, is director of the St. Lurie children’s gender clinic, head of the hospital’s division of adolescent medicine, and a professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, which J.B. Pritzker (whom we will meet later) funds.
• Benjamin N. Breyer is chief of urology at San Francisco General Hospital and a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, specializing in transgender surgery.
• Nicholas Matte teaches at the Mark Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto, with a specialty in queer studies. Jennifer Pritzker also funds the Bonham Centre. Matte lectures around the country on transgender issues, and espouses the idea that we are not a sexually dimorphic species.
• Mark Hyman is the Pritzker Foundation Chair in functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine. Cleveland Clinic conducted the United States’ first uterus transplant.
• Baylor College of Medicine is on the receiving end of the Pritzker School of Medicine’s “pipeline programs” for people studying to be doctors. Baylor is where the nation’s first child was born from a uterus transplant as part of an experimental program funding the procedure for 10 women in order to develop uterus transplants ultimately health insurance and taxpayers will pay for rather than being relegated to elective infertility treatment.

Jennifer Pritzker has also helped normalize transgender individuals in the military with a $1.35 million grant to the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara-based LGBT think tank, to create research validating military transgenderism. He has also donated $25 million to Norwich University in Vermont, a military academy and the first school to launch a Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program.

Pritzker’s funding is not confined to the United States, but reaches other countries via WPATH, in conferences for physicians studying transgender surgery and funding of international universities.

Penny Pritzker

Cousin to Jennifer Pritzker, Penny Pritzker served on President Obama’s Council for Jobs and Competitiveness and Economic Recovery Advisory Board. She was national co-chair of Obama for America 2012 and national finance chair of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. To say she was influential in getting president Obama elected would be an understatement.

To say she was influential in getting president Obama elected would be an understatement.

As Obama’s secretary of commerce, Penny Pritzker helped create the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), by facilitating an award of $70 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the first funding of its kind. Obama made transgenderism a pet issue of his administration, holding a meeting at the White House (the first ever) for transgenderism.

The administration quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to alter their passports, get cross-sex treatment at Veteran’s Administration facilities, and access public school restrooms and sports programs based on gender identity. These are just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama’s presidency.

Soros and Gill are two other major transgender movement funders who generated millions of dollars to get Obama elected, and Stryker was one of the top five contributors to Obama’s campaign. Under Obama and President George W. Bush, the federal government also funded the Tides Foundation $82.7 million, which in turn donated $47.2 million to LGBTQ issues over the last two decades.

Penny has funded the Harvard School of Public Health and, with her husband through their mutual foundation, The Pritzker Traubert Family Foundation, are funding early childhood initiatives as well as providing scholarships to Harvard University medical students. The Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Services wing physicians are all affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Penny Pritzker also sat on the board at Harvard, where student life offices teach students, many of whom go on to lead U.S. institutions, that “there are more than two sexes.”

J.B. Pritzker

Penny Pritzker’s brother, J.B. Pritzker, is an American venture capitalist, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and business owner. He is co-founder of the Pritzker Group, a private investment firm that invests in digital technology and medical companies, including Clinical Innovations, which has a global presence. Clinical Innovations is one of the largest medical device companies and in 2017 acquired Brenner Medical, another significant medical group offering innovative products in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology.

We have to look at why this is framed as a civil rights issue when the main issues seem to be capital and social engineering.

J.B. provided seed funding for Matter, a startup incubator for medical technology based in Chicago. He also sits on the board of directors at his alma mater, Duke University, where they are making advances in cryopreserving women’s ovaries.

J.B. is running for governor of Illinois in 2018 and put $25 million into an Obama administration public-private initiative totaling $1 billion for early childhood education. J.B. and his wife, M.K. Pritzker, donated $100 million to Northwestern University School of Law, partly for scholarships and partly for the school’s “social justice” and childhood law work.

We have to look at why this is framed as a civil rights issue when the main issues seem to be capital and social engineering. There doesn’t seem to be a sphere of influence that is untouched by Pritzker money, from early childhood education and universities to law, medical institutions, the LGBT lobby and organizations, politics, and the military. If they were the only ones funding the institutionalization of transgender ideology they would still be fantastically influential, but they are joined by other exceedingly wealthy, influential white men, who also have ties to the pharmaceutical and medical industries.

Pharma and Tech Giants All-In for Transgender

Along with support by pharmaceutical giants such as Janssen Therapeutics, the health foundation of a Johnson and Johnson founder, Viiv, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, major technology corporations including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Dell, and IBM are also funding the transgender project. In February 2017, Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Yelp, PayPal, and 53 other mostly tech corporations signed onto an amicus brief pushing the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit schools from keeping private facilities for students designated according to sex.

As these corporations were pushing for transgender bathrooms, they were fighting President Trump’s travel ban and immigration policies. In reporting the incidents simultaneously, CNN News made the obvious connection between the corporations’ interest in the immigration ban and commerce, quoting a legal brief signed by the companies that said, “It is inflicting significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.” It made no such equivalent connection for the corporations’ interest in transgender rights. The obvious question would be: Why do they care? The obvious answer is: money.

It behooves us all to look at what the real investment is in prioritizing a lifetime of anti-body medical treatments for a miniscule part of the population….

The Dentons Document, Part 3

STILLTish – 25 October 2020 – The Glinner Update

The demands.

The section on ‘good practices’ highlights the legal aims on Gender Recognition. 

Firstly, a swift and cheap process for gender recognition which is entirely self-determined. No diagnosis, no surgery, and no legal oversight. 

Secondly, they wish to extend the process of gender recognition to minors and remove parental rights to withhold authorisation. Presumably, this could also extend to preventing parents from delaying access to medical interventions such as puberty blockers.  They don’t make this explicit but this would be my concern.  They also recommend that parents are subject to state sanction if they withhold any authorisation.

Historically, some countries required sterilisation prior to Gender Reassignment treatment.  I think we can all agree this is a breach of human rights.  No similar qualms are on display about children put on puberty blockers; who invariably progress to cross-sex hormones and they will therefore be sterile.  This following entry is rank hypocrisy.

Next, we come to the impact of changing your legal identity on others.  They wish to remove the right to exit the marriage prior to legal sex change. This clause is named the “spousal veto” in U.K. legislation.  Transwidows argue the more accurate term is spousal exit clause. No spouse can halt any treatment. They are merely allowed time to divorce prior to a significant alteration in the marriage contract. 

They also wish to have the right to change documents, even other people’s, to reflect the legal identity.  This could be a male who wishes to be, retrospectively and dishonestly, recorded as the mother.  

Another aim is the removal of the requirement to record sex at all on birth certificates.  Here people with disorders of sexual development are instrumentalised to garner sympathy but, make no mistake, this is a tactic and not designed to accommodate “intersex” people at all. The U.K. govt has already funded a project to look at erasing legal sex from public records, for everybody.

Next up the campaign. to allow for a “third gender” category which would allow the eradication of sex-based data and would, undoubtedly, have the impact of making it impossible to defend sex-based rights and same-sex spaces. 

The seventh demand is for unlimited access to medical treatments referred to as ‘gender confirmation’ procedures, all without any diagnostic criteria. This is interesting in the context of the simultaneous demand that nobody need have any treatment to declare themselves the opposite sex…oops “gender”.  

Finally, the ideal law would include sanctions for anyone deviating from the idea of legal ‘gender recognition’.  I doubt anyone would wish anyone to be subject to discrimination in the way it is used below. However, women do need the right to ‘discriminate’ and exclude persons of the male sex from female spaces.  Discrimination is not a negative practice when it comes to protecting women and girls. 

Finally, after these modest proposals, the document ends with a disclaimer.  An unaccountable group of lobbyists work to change laws away from press and public scrutiny but also disavow any liability for the contents of the report. 

---

Thanks again to Tish for her hard work on this. Please do what you can to boost knowledge of the Dentons Document by writing to your MP and asking them where they stand on its contents and its implications. Also, I hope Irish feminist groups can use Tish’s work to demand a fresh debate on Self-ID in my home country.

‘In plain sight’ scandals like Saville and Rotherham happened because people were too scared to speak. You’ve seen what happened to JK Rowling, to Rosie Duffield and others who challenged this deeply ideological soft coup that aims to fundamentally reshape society. Don’t let the harassment they’ve faced deter you from speaking up. There is safety in numbers and they can’t cancel us all.

This is a crucial point. They'll find it harder to Dentons their way out of this one. https://t.co/rJ2AGOjajo

— Graham Linehan (@Glinner) January 17, 2023