“Contrary to popular belief about the targeting of migrants, totalitarian regimes begin with and are underscored by the control of women.” Dr Em

The Rainbow Reich: Transgender Ideology and Totalitarianism.

Part I: Context.

One thing that is common to men of all political leanings is their desire and perceived need to control women. This hatred and domination of women bonds the societies of men. Peter Beinart has observed that ‘Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Orbán, and their ilk aren’t revolutionaries. But they, too, use gender to discredit one political order and validate another.’ Gender essentialism is doing the same through political parties and lobby groups in the West. As Beinart has discerned, ‘no matter how high a woman ascends, she’s ultimately just a body whose value is determined by men’. Transgender ideologists do this in the fact that they claim woman is a costume, a set of sex-role stereotypes, an identity which can be determined and owned by men. Andrea Dworkin argued in 1981 that ‘the power of men is first a metaphysical assertion of self, an I am that exists a priori, a bedrock, absolute’ and that ‘the first tenet of male-supremacist ideology is that men have this self and that women must, by definition, lack it’. Transgender ideology denies that women have a self, an inner world. Dworkin claimed that defining and naming was a form of male power exerted over the female. She argued that ‘men have the power of naming… this power of naming enables men to define experience, to articulate boundaries and values, to designate to each thing its realm and qualities, to determine what can and cannot be expressed, to control perception itself’. With transgenderism, men are attempting to re-write reality, to discard the basic facts which women perceive. In Beyond God the Father Mary Daly asserted that ‘it is necessary to grasp the fundamental fact that women have had the power of naming stolen from us’ and that this denied women’s humanity. Daly argued that ‘the liberation of language is rooted in the liberation of ourselves’.

We need to place gender essentialism/transgenderism (the notion that women’s oppression is innate and natural) in a wider context — a long lasting global recession with deep political and economic uncertainty and pain. This is the climate for authoritarianism and totalitarianism to emerge. History teaches us that most totalitarian regimes begin by deceiving people that they are left wing or progressive. History shows us that totalitarianism utilises student groups to gain power. Contrary to popular belief about the targeting of migrants, totalitarian regimes begin with and are underscored by the control of women. As Valerie M. Hudson argues ‘it’s vital to remember that for most of human history, leaders & their male subjects forged a social contract: “Men agreed to be ruled by other men in return for all men ruling over women”. The dominance of women is then transferred to the dominance of other men, creating in-group males and out-group males. Andrea Dworkin pointed out that ‘the common erotic project of destroying women makes it possible for men to unite into a brotherhood; this project is the only firm and trustworthy groundwork for cooperation among males and all male bonding is based on it’. Hudson and Patricia Leidl argue that ‘as competing male-bodied nationalist groups struggle for power, they inevitably will seek to roll back any advances for women, even long-standing ones’. As Peter Beinart contends,

‘Because male dominance is deeply linked to political legitimacy, many revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries have used the specter of women’s power to discredit the regime they sought to overthrow. Then, once in power themselves they have validated their authority by reducing women’s rights’.

In recent years the Arab Spring followed this pattern. In their book, The Hillary Doctrine, Hudson and Leidl note that in Egypt when the dictator Hosni Mubarak was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, Morsi quickly announced that he would abolish the quota guaranteeing women’s seats in parliament, his forces punished unruly women with rape and gang rape, he re-legalised female circumcision, and made it harder for women to divorce. This couldn’t happen in a well-established democracy such as in the United Kingdom, could it?

In the U.K. all women short lists which were designed to improve female representation in Parliament were removed by the Labour Party last year, in the name of gender essentialism. At least 300 women self-excluded from the party and party politics on this issue. A teenage male was elected Labour women’s officer after bullying out the longstanding female officer. A male who ‘feels like a female’, Heather Peto, was on an all woman short list and contested Rutland and Melton.

Two males who identify as women based on sex-role stereotypes (gender) took advantage of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, a training programme for passionate women members who are ready to lead in the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats and former minister Lynne Featherstone have declared that women who do not support the idea that their biological sex is not real and has no impact on their lives or is the basis of the discrimination they experience are not welcome in the party. A male who believes a man-made system of oppression trumps biological sex, Sarah Brown, has stated that women’s rights flyers were ‘hate leaflets’.

The Greens now refer to women as ‘non-men’ and have been accused of creating a climate conducive to child sexual abuse due to their hard-line pro-trans policies. Beatrix Campbell records that

Lesbian activist Olivia Palmer has been expelled for opposing the mantra ‘trans women are women’. The Green Party has forced luminaries Rupert Read and Jenny Jones to publically recant their scepticism. Aimee Challenor tried take legal action to silence Green Party activist Andy Healey, and members are wondering who in the leadership supported Aimee Challenor’s legal action to silence him — he launched Gender Critical Greens, a feminist resource, and insisted on identifying Challenor as a man.

Caroline Lucas resigned as co-leader of the Greens due to the backlash she received from trans advocates for agreeing to meet with and listen to women’s groups, particularly WPUK. Could British women and those who care about them turn to another party? No, the Conservatives began a process which would allow any male to declare themselves a female based on their feelings and self-id into formerly single sex spaces and positions. The result will be women’s self-exclusion from public life and a Parliament run by mostly men and males who self-id as women. Indeed, the Women’s Equality Party are seemingly overjoyed at this prospect of not a single female in Parliament. On the 18 Jul 2018 Chloe Halpenny, who is undertaking an MPhil in gender and basic income at the University of Cambridge, celebrated the idea of a Parliament full of males, with 50% identifying as women, at the ‘Ask Her to Stand Event’ with the WEP symbol clear in the background.

The WEP cannot define what a woman is despite claiming to fight for women’s equality and supports the idea that children are born wrong if they don’t conform to sexist stereotypes, as evidenced by their sacking of academic Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans for questioning this idea. All of this in effect not only removes the women’s quota for Parliament, like in Morsi’s Egypt, but removes women’s political representation completely. Unless women agree to the loss of their rights, who can they vote for?

As Peter Beinart argues, male authority is validated by reducing women’s rights. There has indeed been an attack on women’s rights in the U.K. in the name of transgenderism, particularly those enshrined by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 11 ‘Freedom of assembly and association’ have been overtly denied to women. Point one upholds that

‘Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests’.

In Leeds the local government refused to allow a group of women to meet and debate proposed legislative changes which would impact them. As paragraph attests to Article 9, ‘Freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ and Article 10 ‘Freedom of Expression’ are now regularly denied to women who would question the reality of human sex change. The Human Rights Act applies to State bodies, when we look at the private sector individual rights are protected by the Equality Act 2010. This is not being upheld when it comes to women who do not believe that a male is a female based on sex-role stereotypes and his feelings. Certainly, transgenderism is the topic one cannot speak about. In the private sector holding such beliefs as biology is real and women are discriminated against based on their sex can lead to one losing their job. For example, Maya Forstater described how

‘I lost my job over tweeting and writing about sex and gender identity, and sharing campaign material about the negative impacts of the proposed policy of ‘gender self-ID’ on women and girls. I am now taking the organisation I worked for to the Employment Tribunal for discriminating against me because of my beliefs’.

Women’s sex based rights are being portrayed and cast as offensive to males, declared ‘transphobic’.

The single-sex exemption has been re-framed as a hatred. In reporting on males being denied access to female single-sex spaces emotive appeals are made. They are transwomen who have been ‘refused’, ‘rejected’, ‘denied’. Abolishment of single sex spaces for women who are vulnerable is championed, look at the case of Topshop. After one complaint from a male declaring themselves ‘gender-fluid’ all women’s single sex spaces were removed nationally in stores. School girls are taught that if they feel uncomfortable getting undressed in front of males then they are the ones with the problem and are not entitled to change privately away from males. What a lesson for our girls, that their bodily privacy and boundaries are bigotry and will not be tolerated. For example, in East Sussex schools it is policy that ‘trans* pupils or students should have access to the changing room that corresponds to their gender identity’. The desires of one male student removed single-sex facilities for all female students at a school in Kent in 2016. Girls are receiving the message that their needs and wants must always come second to pleasing males. Stonewall is spreading this poisonous dictate. It decrees that

‘A trans young person may wish to use the toilets and changing rooms of their self-identified gender rather than of their assigned sex. Schools and colleges should make sure that a trans student is supported to do so and be aware that this is a legal requirement under the Equality Act’.

It is wrong about the law — the EA2010 covers gender identity on the basis that the individual has a GRC which one cannot obtain until one is 18. The Council in East Sussex has denied the human right to privacy and dignity to all school children under its governance. It is actively instating policy which contravenes the EA2010 and the Schools Premises Regulation 2012. ISS Regulation 23A, 1, b makes it a legal requirement to provide single sex toilet facilities for all those aged 8 years and older. The need for separation by sex not a self-identified feeling was re-stated by the Department of Education in June 2018. Paragraph 13 of the guidance stated

It is permissible for toilet and boarding accommodation facilities to be separate as they are captured under existing statutory exceptions. Separate toilet and washing facilities must be provided for boys and girls aged 8 years and over pursuant to Regulation 4 of the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012, which falls within the exemption provided for in Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010.

In contradiction to this, the Allsorts Trans Toolkit, endorsed by local councillors and implemented across East Sussex schools, asserts that ‘pupils and students have the right to access the toilet that corresponds to their gender identity’. Mixed sex is being brought in through the back door. Stonewall, by declaring males who self-id as females literally women are then able to argue that males should have access to all women’s previously single-sex spaces and resources. We are seeing this pattern repeated in a range of areas from prisons, refuges to women’s sport. This is all removing girls’ and women’s longstanding rights and opportunities.

Like in Morsi’s Egypt, rape is used to control women in the United Kingdom. Women are raped at the rate of 11- 13 per hour in England and Wales while rape prosecutions and subsequently rape convictions are at an all-time low. Andrea Dworkin posited that one aspect of power ‘is the capacity to terrorize, to use self and strength to inculcate fear, fear in a whole class of persons of a whole class of persons’. Susan Griffin has postulated that rape is part of a protection racket forcing women to cede their freedoms to men. She claimed that

‘In the system of chivalry, men protect women against men. This is not unlike the protection relationship which [organized crime]established with small businesses in the early part of this century. Indeed, chivalry is an age-old protection racket which depends for its existence on rape.’

Women’s behaviour, not men’s is proscribed to ‘prevent rape’. This often comes under the guise of proactive and ‘common sense’ but is in effect a curfew on women and a curtailment of their behaviour. Women are taught to not go out on their own late at night or early in the morning, to stay in well-lit areas, don’t drink too much, alert a friend when you get home, meet a stranger in a busy public place, walk to the front door with their keys between their fingers etc. If you are a woman you can probably add to this list. How long will it be before using the toilets unaccompanied will be considered a risk? Transgender ideology is pushing for mixed sex toilets and changing facilities despite the well documented abuse of these situations by males. The U.N., Amnesty and other aid organisations make it clear that the biggest factor in reducing sexual violence against women and permitting their participation in public life in the developing world and refugee camps is the provision of single sex toilets and changing facilities. The Guardian, which regularly pushes transgender ideology, had no problem reporting about women’s safety needs of single sex facilities a few years ago. Anu Anand wrote about how ‘In the village where two girls were gang-raped and hanged earlier this year, toilets may help protect women and health’. As the Cambridge Radical feminists argue, ‘those who claim, like Paris Lees, that women’s fear of sexual predators is ‘all in the mind’, rather than borne from a life-time of living as a woman in a patriarchal society, would do well to read the news more often’. Mixed sex facilities will ultimately force women out of the public sphere as increased threat of rape and sexual assault will re-introduce the ‘toilet leash’. This is purposeful, transgender ideology is determined to remove women from public life and uses the threat of rape and sexual assault to achieve this end.

Those pushing transgender ideology have made it clear that the rape of women as a consequence of implementing their creed is acceptable. Lola Phoenix, a male who feels like a woman, recalled how they were

‘struck by the conversations presenter Munroe Bergdorf had with those who called themselves “feminists”. There was fear expressed that men might take advantage of the changes to the Gender Recognition Act to sneak into places like bathrooms and changing rooms to assault people or make them feel uncomfortable.

Understandably, many people have responded by claiming this scenario very unlikely — and for the most part I agree. After all, if men want to sneak into women’s bathrooms, they already can — providing trans people with a less inaccessible way to have their identity recognised doesn’t change this’.

Women being raped, because rape happens any way, is worth it to validate male feelings according to that transgender advocate. Under transgender ideology rape is considered a means to validate male identity. Stonewall, in their transgender advocacy, campaigns to re-legalise a form of rape — sex by deception. In Stonewall’s document ‘A Vision for change’ Stonewall argued that there was a need for ‘Judicial clarity of ‘sex by deception’ cases to define the legal position on what constitutes sex by deception based on gender, and to ensure trans people’s privacy is protected’. However, there is already judicial clarity. The Crown Prosecution service has declared ‘evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse’ constitutes a form of rape and that with regards to transgender people that when ‘considering the issue of consent as part of the evidential stage of the Full Code Test prosecutors should be aware that the Court of Appeal in Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 determined that deception as to gender can vitiate consent’. Nevertheless, Stonewall don’t want clarity, they want change. Stonewall makes it clear that it wants the sex by deception legislation amended ‘where necessary with due regard to the trans person’s right to privacy’. To achieve this the concept of sex by deception would need to be removed. What progressive, human rights ideology, has one of its goals as making it easier to rape women?

Although the U.K. has yet to make it harder for women to divorce, there are attempts to make it more difficult for women to leave men and unhappy marriages. Firstly, women are becoming stuck in abusive relationships due to the change to Universal Credit. By combining all benefits and putting them into the hands of one member of the house-hold this is leaving women open to financial abuse. The Government is aware of this. A new report from June 2018 argued that ‘the Universal Credit system perpetuates inequality, and facilitates abusive men’s control and coercion of their partners’. Secondly, Stonewall is lobbying the government to make it more arduous for women to leave unhappy and potentially coercive/abusive relationships. The proposed removal of the spousal veto would mean an end to a 6 month period after a person has applied for a GRC in which the spouse (usually the wife) may dissolve the marriage. This possibility of annulment is important, particularly as many religions frown on divorce and second marriage. It is the closest to a no-fault divorce possible, why would Stonewall, who is lobbying to re-legalise a type of rape, wish to remove women’s consent and free choice in marriage? Despite the narratives of the happy and supportive wife the lived experiences of many women whose male partners claim to feel like and thus become female attest to the often abusive nature of the relationship. One woman describes her experience of how

‘I’m still in it. H is on a purge phase after a really horrible binge period. We have been together nearly 20 years, married 11. I found out about the crossdressing 2 years ago. I am not yet 40 and have been really defeated by this, only just beginning to get my mojo back.

He has crippled my confidence, classic abuser stuff of encouraging my isolation, I don’t have a proper job and we have two kids.

One of the things that really makes me angry is that he has defamed me, told folk I was crazy, I had trust issues when I found condoms, that I was sexually deficient or having an affair. He has thrown me under the bus so often. I am working hard at getting my health and career back on track, and then I will go. I worry that he will react and be a d*ck financially. At the moment he wants to pretend nothing has ever happened, but wants nothing to do with me sexually, and still guards his phone. He is away a lot so I suspect he keeps dressing outside of the Home. At his worst he was trying to bully me into sleeping with randoms on the internet or from his approved list, so that he could dress up as a maid and serve us tea. When I told him no he threatened to kill himself. Right now he appears normal, for want of a better word, but he is on an aggressive PR campaign to tie our friends to him, (and it is working) he is passive aggressively point scoring with the kids. I am just exhausted by his behaviour being on my mind all the time.

What could be more abusive than asserting that someone else’s perception of reality is wrong and dictating what is real to them? Another woman describes how

‘An argument that nearly led to him chucking me out was when I shouted how I was just a prop with no more importance than a plastic dildo or silk knickers to him. No affection or connection just an actor in his sex fantasy. Led to him having, what I consider, a narcissistic rage attack.

Somehow he made me feel that I was being abusive still not sure how’.

Experts like Evan Stark liken coercive control to being taken hostage. As he says: “the victim becomes captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear.” The claim that humans, indeed the male you married, can and have changed sex is the unreal world, it will lead to confusion and fear as your reality is overruled. When society is saying this is brave and stunning, that one is a bigot if one doesn’t accept would you not become trapped? Your needs and desires are subordinated to the transing partner’s, your emotional and financial resources are used for the transing partner’s gain, your resistance is worn down and denied. All the accounts contained within the online discussion fit the definition of coercive control, and thus domestic abuse. The Government definition outlines that

‘Controlling behaviour is a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour’.

Nevertheless, as well as championing behaviour that fits the government’s own definition of domestic abuse the government and lobby groups such as Stonewall are proposing to remove marriage annulment based on this behaviour in certain circumstances. It represents the core male political notion that women are owned by men and exist for their pleasure. This idea is to be found amongst men of all political leanings and the Left finally has a means of acceptably expressing it.

Transgenderism is the new way for the Left to expel women from politics and their ranks. Dr Caroline Norma, an expert in Global Studies, Social Science, and Planning at RMIT University, and a member of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia (CATWA), was no platformed for an article she wrote in 2015 warning us of the anti-feminism in Left wing politics. Norma argued that since the 1960s left wing men have wanted to purge uppity women from the parties but would lose face as ‘Overtly denigrating feminists is risky: it can be perceived as misogynistic, and cedes too much political ground on issues lefties like to call their own’. Norma claimed that ‘Unfortunately, prolific and global male crimes of incest, rape, prostitution, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, child marriage and acid attacks make the feminist cause a bit too justified, and a bit too popular’. Norma outlined how because feminism wasn’t just going to die the left had to play wedge politics. Transgenderism provided this wedge and subsequently the ‘Left has managed to purge feminists from its ranks more successfully today than at any time since the Second World War’. This purge of women from left wing politics and power has been a lengthy endeavour, transgenderism is only the recent face. Norma delineates how the

‘Left’s first victory came in the 1980s. Throughout this decade, feminist opposition to pornography was beginning to gain traction as a wedge issue. As a result, an entire generation of feminists was driven from the Left for refusing to adhere to the newly minted idea of the sexual revolution that pornography was an expression of women’s political freedom. Dworkin, MacKinnon and others were forced out and the global sex industry was the direct beneficiary of this win against feminists of the 1980s’.

Male sexual entitlement of left-wing men continued to drive out women who opposed the sexual objectification of themselves and their sisters. Indeed,

We are seeing this pattern repeated with the notion that women’s oppression is natural and innate being championed by female politicians of the Left such as Angela Rayner, Mhairi Black, Diane Abbot and more. These politicians are gaining from women’s suffering and have sold their sisters out for male approval and power. Attacking women is certainly popular amongst men. We have seen how left wing men have used the term TERF and the notion that women labelled as such as deserve to be attacked to unleash a latent misogyny. The purpose of comparing the changes in the U.K. to those that occurred in the wake of the Arab Spring and establishment of a new dictatorship is to highlight that this attack on women is global and cross-cultural. It comes in many different guises. This is what feminists call patriarchy. It is important before we move forward to note that all those classic signs of an incoming dictatorship which have been observed from Brazil, to Egypt, to the U.S.A., are present in the U.K. This ideology is shoring up men’s power by attacking women’s rights. It is far from progressive.