For my sins I have been discussing the whole issue of being transgender with a former colleague; he would say “friend” of mine. He is someone with whom I became involved  with through a business venture. This meant I was unable to simply walk away when his bigotry over trans matters started being articulated. His stance is firmly in the Gender Critical camp of sex is biology and that is it. He was for many years a farmer and firmly believes that nature is nature, that he knows all about these matters and nature, sex, cannot be changed.

Many months ago I lent him a copy of Jan Morris’ book Conundrum. I thought this might help him have another perspective. My light bulb moment of understanding I was transgender had come through reading the book. Once I had started it I did not put it down, read from cover to cover in hours. It did not have the same effect on my colleague. Firstly it has taken him the best part of a year to read it slowly, painstakingly analysing every paragraph it would seem. The outcome is that he cannot understand how a trans person can “happily procreate” (to use his words) and subsequently want to change their sex. His expression was somewhat cruder than that. My colleague acknowledges there are substantial chunks of Jan Morris’ life which are not covered in the book; his feelings in childhood, puberty, his very successful life as a man pre transition and that to an extent the book raises more questions than it supplies answers – a Conundrum indeed.

I have revealed more of myself than I would normally do in terms of how long I knew that there was a mismatch in me, even if I did not know exactly what that was until much later when I had the light bulb moment. I have tried to explain the angst such a mismatch causes, that it is a real feeling not some fantasy or fetish. I do not recall it, but my colleague states that Jan Morris says somewhere in the book that he enjoys the feel of women’s clothes and gets real satisfaction from being able to go out and parade herself in such apparel. He uses this as support for it being a fetish. The autogynephilia argument which is coming to the fore again supported by Debbie Hayton.

I have conceded that trans issues cover a considerable spectrum from cross dressing by way of a fetish, transvestite to full transgender where sex does not form a constituent part for transitioning. Indeed my sexuality so far has not been influenced by changing my gender and transitioning, though I have not discussed my sexuality with him as I feel that is too much information to divulge.

I have conceded that I cannot be a cis woman. I have never claimed that I would be able to become one. I acknowledge I am a trans woman. I argued that gender and sex are separate a concept he finds he is unable to accept. He steadfastly uses my deadname at all times and more than is usual in a conversation. 

I suppose I should have known better than to attempt to open the mind of someone such as him. Curiously enough he enthused over Jan Morris’ writing style and is going to seek out more of her writing. He thinks he will enjoy “his” work!. Nothing more to be said really. Within a few months I should be able to close that door once and for all.

This past week was Trans Awareness Week. On Friday it was Trans Day of Remembrance. It felt an odd week in some ways. There were many positive signs which I would not have expected. Reading Council flew the Trans flag on their flagpole for the whole week. Rochdale Council flew the Trans flag on the Day of Remembrance. Perhaps a small thing yet it seemed huge to me. I do not think that would have happened even a couple of years ago. There were several marches, not protest marches, just to be visible in cities. 

There were several events raising the Trans profile. Bobbi Pickard, a transwoman,  the CEO of Trans in the City closed the London Stock Exchange.

There were many allies standing up to be counted. One was Nadia Whittome, a Labour M.P “through down the gauntlet for cisgender lesbian, gay and bisexual folk to stand with their trans siblings in the fight for true liberation”. An echo of Shon Faye’s call for true liberation. A shame that it is not yet the policy of the Labour Party as a whole who still protect Rose Duffield for her gender critical views. Then again in this week when Rose Duffield was being interviewed on BBC Politics and expressing her gender critical views a commentator, Ellie Mae O Hagan was allowed to put her opposing view, empathetically without it being the usual slanging match. 

Lorraine recently interviewed Dr Kathleen Stock on her programme where there was a discussion and Lorraine simply stated that she did not agree with Dr Stock, that Trans women were women and trans men were men; that Dr Stock was entitled to her position and they were entitled to disagree. Such a simple statement which included an agreement to disagree. 

There was an announcement that the leading actors from Harry Potter were coming together to make a feature for Netflix. There was a wave of anger that there former words were not genuine when they went against J K Rowling. In fact J K Rowling is not part of this production. Maybe that is contrived but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Emma Watson is a particular friend and supporter of Paris Lees and has spoken frequently in support of Trans issues, as has Daniel Ratcliffe.

For me it was a sobering thought that more than one trans person a day has been died in the world this year. Just as I light a candle for the fallen on Remembrance Sunday, I lit a candle last Friday for the Trans people who have died. 

So where are we? It seems that there is a chink of light that there is more mainstream support. I did not see the complete dumping of anti-trans material I would have expected to emerge in the Trans Week of Awareness. Maybe another small step forward. I wonder where we will be this time next year.

It has been a lovely weekend. It was my birthday and although I am not sure it is, it feels because of Covid, that it is the first one I have been able to celebrate since I have fully transitioned. Before I have chosen to visit my family in an “androgynous” style….jeans, jumper, no make-up so as not to rub there face in it so to speak. I have taken the view that they did not choose this and there is no reason for me to make it harder than it needs to be, to give them time to get used to it. I am not sure that is actually the right approach, or even if there is a right approach. However, it is the one that I adopted. Maybe it is the same as there is no right or wrong decision, just the decision you make which then has consequences one way or another.

Although we have spoken regularly I have not met or zoomed my eldest daughter and her family for twenty months so they were unaware of the changes that have been going on quietly with the benefit of HRT and my hair growing out. So needless to say my paranoia set in, how would they take it? It is easy to ignore what has been going on by just talking to someone but the reality of seeing me fully transitioned was  going to be a completely different matter.

I umm’d and arr’d about should I wear a skirt, should I wear jeans but with make-up? My hair is below my shoulders now….etc, etc. By wearing a skirt I would be making more of a statement than if I wear jeans. I was aware it was paranoia, yet right until the time I was getting dressed I was unsure what was the right thing to do. So in the morning when I got up early, as I had a drive to do to catch a ferry, I had still not decided. As it turned out it was the long skirt, a top and make up, just what I would normally wear, no need for concessions…this is me.

On the ferry, I got several “Madams” which boosted my confidence. Then I turned up at my daughter’s house and was greeted completely normally. No comment, no mention of how I was dressed or on my appearance from my daughter her partner or the grandchildren; we just got on with the day! My fifteen year old granddaughter in the afternoon just asked me quietly what pronouns I would prefer her to use and made a comment that it is all much more accepted by her generation than when I was her age.

So as it turned out there was no need for the paranoia. I really could be myself. The following day I met my brother and his partner and my younger daughter and her partner who are all used to meeting the real transitioned me, followed by a virtual meeting with my friends rounding off an enjoyable birthday weekend in the perfect way.

Some years ago, many, many years ago while on holiday in Cornwall having breakfast with the family, we heard a rubber fish, Billy Bass, singing “Don’t worry, be happy”. It was so silly, so tacky, you couldn’t help smiling…be happy. In fact it was so infectious, one Billy Bass was tracked down and returned home with the family at the end of the holiday.

Why is that relevant now? Well I have been more and more aware that I am a worrier. I worry about everything. Subconsciously, most of the time, which is why I have been quite surprised now that I am aware of this behaviour pattern. I believe it is something that stems from my early life. Basically for two reasons, one I was aware that I was different and that caused in the early days anxiety because I did not understand why I was different; latterly, the anxiety was whether anyone would discover why I was different. Secondly I was not able to live up to my father’s expectations not being accomplished at boys sports and very definitely unable to live up to my elder brother’s sporting prowess. He was a proper boy.

This continued as a behaviour pattern so that anything I did I worried about. Was it going to be good enough? There was always a feeling of the imposter syndrome. I didn’t realise it then, however that attitude was why more often than not I did not reach my full potential. I did not have belief in myself. I achieved quite a lot, yet that well known phrase “could have done better” without doubt was appropriate.

When I transitioned I worried. Was I good enough? Was I trans enough? Would I ever pass?

You name it and I worried.

Recently, I was speaking to my close friend and mentor about one issue in particular. She said something that enabled me to stop worrying about the issue. I realised how my worrying had impacted on that situation. So I started thinking, rather the same thought process sort of filtered through and I came to see that worrying was such a negative process that in the words of the song simply “doubles the trouble”. Worrying takes up so much energy that there is so much less available to deal with the issues needing to be dealt with.

Crazily, having come to this realisation I have stopped worrying. Of course it is far too soon to say, it is only days and no doubt a relapse is a real possibility after so many years, yet the freedom of accepting I am what I am and I can only do my best has been a revelation. So fingers crossed somewhere in my psyche Billy Bass has finally got through “ Don’t worry, be happy”.

This is not just about being trans. Being trans makes you different from the norm, from the binary genders so I take that for granted now. I am different, I am a trans woman. Apparently trans people make up about 1% of the population. Hard to believe it is such a small percentage considering the outrage and media coverage this tiny minority seems to provoke at this time.

Rather than the difference of being trans, I am referring to wanting to be an individual, not following what society considers to be the norm. When I was younger it was, (showing my age) a detached house, a mortgage, 2.4 children and a Ford Cortina. I did not want that. It was too set in stone. Where was the freedom? I don’t know why it seemed so awful to me. Maybe I didn’t understand that you could be an individual as well as following a normal, conventional path. I  remember sitting in my first office job, a bare white room with a desk and three blue chairs and thinking is this it? I am to sit here for the next forty years shuffling  bits of paper around. I 

Maybe it was because I felt trapped with my transgender identity and needed to break out in some other way since I had created this conventional person to become acceptable, hiding my true self from myself. Maybe I sensed that I was not being true to myself and I could not accept that anything around me was real either and fought it.

I suppose there have always been individuals who follow their dream, though in my world they tended to go unnoticed with everyone following seemingly mundane normal pathways.

I wonder whether the lifetime of self-deception pre transition caused permanent psychological damage? Whether in some way I remain broken? I am entirely comfortable with myself now and apart from the anxiety of transphobia etc am good just trying to get on with my life, yet at the same time I know I have interests which are not mainstream and set me apart from the norm.

Reading the Transgender Issue by Shon Faye I was struck by the concept that the patriarchal, capitalist society needed to change. Shon Faye says in the conclusion “We are symbols of hope for many non trans people, too, who see in our lives the possibility of living more fully and freely. That is why some people hate us: they are frightened by the gleaming opulence of our freedom. Our existence enriches the world.”

Maybe it has been searching for that freedom that has left its scars. Scars that will heal over time as I move towards enjoying the freedom of just being me enjoying my individuality.

Bad habits are so hard to break. For the majority of my life I have hidden the true me and cultivated a false persona which to my mind made me more acceptable that the shameful unacceptable fact I knew about myself. That seems quite simple, straightforward even. However living a lie, in my case, made it easier to dissemble in all manner of ways.

I have been living the true me for some years now. In my business dealings, the real me has inherited situations that were in existence prior to my transition and which if I am honest had involved some manipulation to put together a jigsaw of interconnecting deals. The main one had not gone according to plan and after many delays there was now a real risk that it would fall apart causing substantial losses.

There is a possible rescue plan that potentially would save the day. To make it work the principal of the plan had assumed I would leave profits from a different scheme in place for it to work. The truth was I could not afford to do it. I have other obligations and requirements to meet with those funds. 

This is where the bad habits came in. I knew I had to have those funds, yet if I did not leave them in the rescue package might not happen. I wanted to be honest and straight about saying I could not leave those funds in, yet habits from my old self were raising their head “ you can’t blow it” etc, etc.

Fortunately, I have a brilliant mentor of my new true self who made it quite clear what I should do and that living my truth covered all areas. I emailed the principle making it clear that I was not able to leave those funds in to assist the rescue plan. The world didn’t end, I had simply stated the truthful position. Anything that does happen will be based on solid facts and not end in my having to say in six months’ time, oh I can’t do that now. Nor do I have to worry that there will be a problem coming over the horizon.

So there has been a meeting today based on the reality of my position. Every bodies cards have been put on the table and whatever comes from it will be whatever it is. For me I have been truthful and have learnt again that living your truth is more than just being honest about my gender. I am so grateful to my mentor for holding me to that.

Maybe it was false hope last week that the tide is turning against Gender Critical Transphobia. I hope it is just a blip and in the longer term there really is progress being made. Certainly, I do see more vocal or social media support for trans people by the general population than recently. It is as if the strident abuse has reached a level were ordinary people are saying hang on a minute this is going too far.

Needless to say this has not filtered its way through to the media where the consistent one sided reporting has escalated with the situation over Dr Stocks at Sussex University.

This weekend there has been the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. Quite apart from any political considerations or leanings this level of violence against someone simply trying to perform his job is shocking. It has now been classed as a Terrorist incident.

Apart from this appalling act of violence, what has shocked me though is how the media have managed to weave into this appalling tragedy political point scoring. On the one hand there are discussions about improving security and what needs to be done to protect MPs, and others, going about their work and then on the other hand there is finger pointing saying such things as the language used by Angela Rayner incites and encourages violence. 

What I had noticed was how  some trans activists expected someone to pick up the narrative that somehow Sir David Amess’ tragic death could be linked to the trans war. My thoughts were don’t be silly. Today Joanna Cherry Q.C  has managed it! In an article in the Daily Record today she writes about “the rise in abuse towards politicians following the murder of Sir David Amess”. A reasonable stance to take. Many politicians have spoken about the level of abuse they have received.  Joanna Cherry goes on to make it clear that “some politicians, public bodies and institutions have been guilty of reinforcing intolerance. My experience is that a category of women in our public life has been created who can be bullied intimidated and threatened with impunity.”  That category of women are the Gender Critical. I just feel a bit of despair that everything has to be the fault of trans people. A day just focusing on the tragic death of a politician, it would seem by a radicalised terrorist, without bring in the culture wars would have been a change.

Following on from last weeks’ post I wonder whether now that everything is coming to a head, it is the catalyst for change. I have no sound basis or evidence that this is the case, just a feeling, which I hope isn’t wishful thinking, that enough is enough and some sanity will prevail in the coming months, or year.

I have seen that the Good Law Project is to bring proceedings against the NHS for its failure to deliver timely healthcare to Trans people. The basis of such a claim is that Trans people are properly entitled to healthcare and that a wait of some four years even to be referred for treatment is unacceptable. In addition, a recent report of 700 people showed that 29% of trans people are refused healthcare by their GPs simply because they are trans and out of those that do receive healthcare 70% experience transphobia while receiving treatment. The Welsh Government are actively training GPs in Trans healthcare which is a positive step. Maybe England could follow suit?

 At the same time the Medical Council Tribunal hearing into the work of Dr Helen Webberley  and Gender Care has been taking place and is now in its eleventh week. It has been patently obvious from the experts that trans people are being failed by the NHS causing suffering to many trans people. Even if Dr Webberley is found to have transgressed in respect of some technical point, which I fear may be the case as the Medical Council will be pushing for something to exonerate bringing the charges in the first place, the evidence has overwhelmingly and clearly shown the failings in the way that Trans people are treated by the NHS. The Defence experts have supported Dr Webberley’s approach wholeheartedly, including the head of WPATH. One would hope that such heavyweight support would carry some clout.

As far as the Government is concerned it was disappointing to read that the Conservative Whips had invited the Labour MP Rose Duffield to defect to the Conservatives. So far as I am aware this has not happened, yet. It does however show where their heart is along with their hosting a stand for the LGB Alliance at their conference.

Then there is the fun down at Sussex University, where the students are protesting about Dr Stock. Dr Stock wrote a book called “Material Girls and what really matters for Feminism”.  Dr Stock takes the position that trans women are not women and supports the Gender Critical view of sex being immutable. A position she should be allowed to speak freely on without fear of harassment or threats of violence. Equally, so should trans activists be able to speak freely without fear of harassment or threats of violence. Dr Stock, however, complains that she is being labelled as transphobic and says that journalists “now see a familiar and ‘marketable woman’ aggressed angle” which distracts from “the main story: how for six years, our national institutions- including media- have colluded”. A Mere solicitor comments on Twitter that “the lie has been those who seek to excuse a campaign against trans people’s existing human rights and legal protections (can) be (seen as) anything other than transphobic. 

To put Dr Stock’s book into some kind of perspective it has been reviewed with that other Gender Critical best seller by Helen Joyce “Trans When Ideology Meets Reality”. The review is by Alex Sharpe, a Professor of Law at the University of Warwick and can be found on:- 

www.https:/criticallegalthinking.com/2021/10/08/review-of-helen-joyce-materialgirls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-london-fle/#_ftn24

It is a devastating and convincing deconstruction of the arguments put forward by Dr Stock as well as by Helen Joyce. It is a substantial and detailed review and concludes that “both books fall considerable short of claims made on their behalf. Rather they contribute to the toxicity surrounding trans people and they make it more difficult for us to live our lives. Moreover they provide comfort to right wing political forces who both solicit and deploy their rhetoric in ways antithetical to the interest of women and LGBQ, and especially T people.”

I may well be being naïve that matters will improve, yet I do feel that there is now more resistance to the Gender Critical transphobic views than there has been before with reasoned argument, pointing out that trans people already have legal protections which the gender critics are consistently ignoring and are currently trying to erode. Therefore I live in hope

This feels a bit like the silly season, all the political parties are trying to set out their positions in relation to Trans rights as it conference time. It seems to be quite hard for any party to get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet.

The Liberal Democrats went first and by their Leader, Ed Davey, made a very clear statement that Trans rights are human rights.  No problem there really except they are very unlikely to have any power.

Next came Labour. Now this really is not that simple, the party want to please all possible outcomes. The Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer made a statement saying that the Labour position had not changed from their 2019 manifesto and that they supported the Equality Act and the provision of single sex spaces. Basically that is fine. It was meant to imply, so Sir Keir says, that the Equality Act already provides for single sex spaces by providing exceptions and that is what he is supporting. However, Rose Duffield, one of his MPs who felt unable to attend the conference because she suggested it would not be safe for her to do so for fear of reprisals takes the view that “only women have a cervix” and is carrying the banner for the exclusion of trans woman from single sex spaces. Interestingly, she also did not want attend as she did not want to be the centre of attraction which of course she was by making a point of not attending. Emily Thornbury promptly responded to a question to say that “only women have a cervix” is just wrong.

Sir Keir did not clarify his position and rebut that proposal and confirming that the Equality Act already contains sufficient provisions by way of exemptions. 

The Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner in her forthright manner simply said that Women’s rights are not in conflict with trans rights and that our fight is your fight.  She went on to point out how the present Government was running a campaign of hate and that Ministers were looking at vulnerable people, that they are looking at the trans community and they see it as an opportunity to divide people”. The Labour LGBT+ group and official affiliate of the party has taken a public stance against the views of Rose Duffield and voiced support for the inclusion of trans women in all women spaces, saying “we will stand with our trans siblings”.

The Green Party although not having a conference have been electing a new leader and have elected joint leaders who support the trans community. One of the candidates for the leadership, who lost, has proposed that it should not be possible for anybody to join the party without the signing up to the view that women’s spaces should be single sex spaces. It is thought that proposal is unlikely to be carried.

Then we have the Government. The Conservative Party conference. At the conference they allowed the transphobic group, LGB Alliance to have a stand. That says it all really and at the moment there do not seem to be any MPs willing to put their head above the parapet and make a clear statement in support of trans rights. The conference has not yet concluded but with the Equality Ministers being opposed to changes in legislation and in regular contact with LGB Alliance and being critical of and misrepresenting the Stonewall policies I am not expecting any supportive statements from them.

This is not something I had come across as a recognised behaviour before, however having read an article in Metro News by Ellen Scott it has made sense of so much of what is happening around the current date over trans rights. DARVO is an anacronym for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. According to the article, the acronym was coined in 1997 by Dr Freyd, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon.

This seems to me to be the ploy used by so many of the Gender Critical protagonists, and in particular celebrities and politicians whose views are challenged. What is troubling is that the article comes to the conclusion that this behaviour is effective. How does DARVO work? As it suggests there are consecutive stages. First the behaviour complained about is denied. This is done in several ways, a flat denial “it didn’t happen”, I do not hold those views,  you are making it up”. However it is said by simply denying it is undermining someone’s actual lived reality.

The next stage is the Attack element. At this point the person who has been accused will turn the situation onto the accuser to focus blame on them for having called them out. This is apparent with people of some standing such as a celebrity where they attack by calling someone a liar and that they are calling them out just to be spiteful or jealous. 

These leads on to the Reverse Victim and Offender stage when the person who has been called out  turns the tables and claim that they are the one who is being badly treated and bullied. To reinforce this not unfrequently they will support their claim that they have had trauma in their life too. They then focus on the fact that they feel bullied by these accusations about their alleged wrongdoing ( which has already denied) and that they are the victim who is receiving online abuse and threats. It ends with the person calling them out as the Offender. Ellen Scott suggests the argument will run along the lines of “I am receiving so much online abuse because I am a woman and we live in a sexist society”. She goes on to say that “Now as a critic, you’re stuck. If you continue to call that person out. You’re cruel hateful md want to cause division…..You’re piling on the online abuse”.

What the research carried out by Dr Freyd  has shown is that the result of a DARVO response is that the original victim is less likely to be believed and is more likely to be blamed for the bad situation, making it effective for the original perpetrators of the abuse. As Ellen Scott says “ The dangerous thing is that DARVO works”.

This is a behavioural response that is used very frequently by the Gender Critical movement where they deny they are transphobic in any way and that the trans activists are the  abusers.