Written By:
- Date published:
11:24 am, April 24th, 2022 - 40 comments
Categories: feminism, gender, gender critical feminism, health -
Tags: cass review, detrans, keira bell, transgender trend
One of a number of things around gender identity ideology unravelling in the UK at the moment. I’ll preface this post with stating clearly that the problem here is not trans people, but the gender identity activism which has forced so many changes on society without adequate examination. In this case, it’s the surgical and hormonal treatment of children. From the Times on Friday,
Vulnerable children are wrongly being given gender hormone treatment by the NHS, Sajid Javid believes, as he prepares to launch an urgent inquiry https://t.co/02epjgPOJq
— The Times and The Sunday Times (@thetimes) April 23, 2022
The health secretary thinks the system is “failing children” and is planning an overhaul of how health service staff deal with under-18s who question their gender identity.
Javid is understood to have likened political sensitivities over gender dysphoria to the fears of racism in Rotherham over grooming gangs.
(The Rotherham reference is to a child sexual abuse scandal in the UK that ran for years because of sexism, and the fears of people in positions of power too afraid to talk about the perpetrators who were from an ethnic minority).
The context for Javid’s announcement,
Whistleblower Sue Evans, a nurse at Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust in London, first raised concerns in 2004 about the fast tracking of GNC children into medical and surgical treatment. She was ignored and left the service.
When Evans started at the Tavistock in 2003, she was “proud to be working in a tiny team at a pioneering organisation”. But on hearing a colleague describe how, after only a few assessments, they had referred a distressed 16-year-old boy who thought of himself as female for hormone treatment, her “jaw dropped”. She recalls feeling “something was very, very wrong with the GIDS approach”.
In her early years as a psychiatric nurse, she had witnessed treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, that are now widely condemned: “I know enough of the history of psychiatry to always be cautious about intervention.”
Evans had assumed she would be able to use her psychotherapeutic skills to support the scores of children referred each year. When she raised the possibility of alternatives to medication, Evans was advised the service would not have any patients without the offer of puberty blockers. Last year, GIDS had 2,590 children referred for them, compared with 77 patients a decade ago.
(it’s generally accepted that a small number of children may need medical intervention, but that most need other kinds of support until they mature enough to make decisions about medical pathway treatments. There’s a lot of debate about the research, and we probably don’t have enough yet, but there are studies that show that most children/teens who say they are the opposite sex later desist and continue life as their biological sex).
In the intervening years mostly women, often grass roots, have been working hard to get the issue looked at. Many women who do this work publicly face abuse, threats, and doxing, and risk job and career loss.
Detrans women (who transitioned as girls, but later regretted this or realised their gender dysphoria was still the same) have been organising and lobbying. Often under intense social pressure to stfu from trans activists and allies, their cause has been marginalised by rhetoric of them being very small in number, or that they weren’t really trans in the first place, or they were trans and didn’t have enough support so they’re not really detrans. GIDS don’t provide services for detrans children/teens.
Keira Bell was referred to GIDS at 15 and put on puberty blockers when she was 16. The following year she was given the cross sex hormone testosterone, and when she was 20 she had a double mastectomy,
But the further my transition went, the more I realized that I wasn’t a man, and never would be. We are told these days that when someone presents with gender dysphoria, this reflects a person’s “real” or “true” self, that the desire to change genders is set. But this was not the case for me. As I matured, I recognized that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause.
Five years after beginning my medical transition to becoming male, I began the process of detransitioning. A lot of trans men talk about how you can’t cry with a high dose of testosterone in your body, and this affected me too: I couldn’t release my emotions. One of the first signs that I was becoming Keira again was that—thankfully, at last—I was able to cry. And I had a lot to cry about.
The consequences of what happened to me have been profound: possible infertility, loss of my breasts and inability to breastfeed, atrophied genitals, a permanently changed voice, facial hair. When I was seen at the Tavistock clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body. But it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery.
Bell took Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust(who run GIDS) to Judicial Review in front of three high court judges in 2020, arguing that the Trust had failed to protect children and teens and that its practice was essentially and experiment. The judges found in Bell’s favour unanimously. (PDF of judgement). Bell gives an explanation of this and the wider culture here.
Of particular note is that GIDS weren’t keeping records of what they were doing and weren’t doing adequate follow up.
Another group that has been working to get this issue addressed is parents. Seven years ago Stephanie Davies-Arai set up Transgender Trend, an organisation of parents, professionals and academics looking at issues of self-ID, ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria often associated with social contagion on social media), legislative and social changes affecting girls and young women in regards to sex and gender. The website is a clearing house for the various and interlocking issues, and it’s been instrumental in presenting information and analysis that most of the mainstream media ignored for many years.
One of the consequences of the Bell case, and gender critical activism, has been the Cass Review, an independent review commissioned by the NHS which released its interim report in February. From the Observer’s editorial statement on on gender identity services for children,
The Cass review’s interim report finds children with gender identity issues are ill served by adults who shut down debate
The report highlights a profound lack of evidence and medical consensus about the best approach to treating gender dysphoria in children.
This report has led to the UK government to launch the urgent inquiry, which is to be integrated into the ongoing Cass Review. From Transgender Trend’s response to the announcement,
The Times reports that Javid is also preparing legal changes that would give Hilary Cass access to an NHS database of children treated by the service to see how many later regretted taking puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones.
…
The politicisation of a childhood condition and adolescent identity development has led to catastrophic failings in the health system’s duty of care to children. An ideological system based on faith rather than facts and evidence has led to numerous children and young people being harmed irreversibly by the medical profession. The independent Cass Review has shone a light on a medical experiment on children that was previously obscured by dogma and an adult political agenda.
The consequences of giving one group of diverse children the simplistic political label ‘transgender’ has led to an unquestioning acceptance of a child’s self-diagnosis by the health profession and a complete abdication of duty to provide normal standards of paediatric care. We are grateful that Sajid Javid has listened to Cass and we hope that the days of listening to activist groups on the subject of healthcare for children are well and truly over.
The question here is why GIDS has such complete ideological capture. This is another whole post, which rests largely on why progressives have uncritically adopted gender identity ideology and the degree to which well funded lobbyists have been successful (especially Stonewall UK and Mermaids).
Of particular concern here is the No Debate position taken by gender identity activists. This has been phenomenally successful at shutting down debate, in large part by attacking people who speak up, calling them bigots and using social media and other social pressures to marginalise and deter them. This includes within many institutions in the UK, where academics and medical professionals are afraid to say anything other than the gender ideology lines. The people that have broken that have faced extreme pressure, abuse, “shocking levels of vilification and attempts to undermine their professional integrity” and sometimes lost their jobs. The left has largely sat by and let this happen, where it wasn’t been actively endorsing and supporting it.
If women in particular had been free to raise concerns and we had had the debates on the left, then the problems with organisations like GIDS would have been addressed in the first years. It’s taken nearly 20 years to blow this open enough for appropriate institutions to begin to mend what has happened, and I expect it will take a number of more years due to the ideological capture and the less powerful but still functional No Debate.
I don’t know the state of play in New Zealand with affirmation only (no doubt there will be comments and links below on this). I do know that No Debate functions here as well, that the left is largely complicit in this, and that we still don’t have the freedom to debate without censure or risk. The government has at least twice done major legislative and policy changes where it explicitly didn’t consult women’s groups, and no platforming has attempted to shut down public meetings. The government appears intent on replacing sex with gender identity as the default within policy and legislation. People are afraid to speak out, and the Greens and Labour have inhibited debate within their parties.
These are complex issues. Obviously transgender people need protection and their human rights upheld just like everyone else. I trust gender critical feminists and detrans women as the groups that will work for the rights and wellbeing of both trans and women, while large parts of the left hold to the idea that women are bigots if they talk about a conflict of rights. I also at this point trust the UK tory government more than I do UK Labour/Greens or NZ Labour/Greens on issues of overmedicalisation. I hope NZ proves me wrong.
Thanks, weka.
Well outlined post in response to UK's latest announcement.
The ideological capture is one that can be partly explained by the tactics outlined in the Denton's document, reported in The Spectator by James Upkirk.
(Archived copy here: https://t.co/6nRi9PHXO4)
For those following this issue, the dismantling of the parent-child relationship by accusations of owners-property is common. This is reinforced in education policies that transition children without parent's input or knowledge, and by organisations and individuals that deem any parental questioning or concerns as abusive.
Hence the proliferation of people like this on social media:
https://youtu.be/UVoIT3Dc160
With good intentions, people have accepted that in this one area – people (including children) can self-diagnose, pick from a set menu of options and treatments – and no robust or exploratory scrutiny is required.
As gender ideologists pushed for breaking boundaries, and ever widening expansion of parameters, and unquestioning medical treatment, the systems that are meant to protect us all from iatrogenic harm, and maintain appropriate safeguards stood aside.
In NZ, we have the equivalent methods and institutional capture. #NoDebate has been much more successful here with our limited media offerings – in print, broadcasting and online. But the voices are still there, asking to be heard.
The recently added Relationships and Sexuality Curriculum is an unnecessary adjunct to the curriculum in terms of knowledge, but was required to introduce the gender ideology concepts to students at primary, intermediate and secondary school level.'
I've posted on this before, most recently yesterday, but have added excerpt here to keep thread on topic:
I think part of the institutional capture is the use of individuals that belong to certain communities as unchallenged authors of documents that are used for policy.
There is a temerity not associated with robust process, that comes from a discomfort with questioning the assertions or demands of someone who belongs to a recognised marginalised community. That is a possibility.
(I have suspicions that the same is happening in Maturanga Maori changes in the curriculum. To my mind, this is disrespectful to both the institution and the community they wish to include).
I hope that people will be writing to both the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education regarding these points.
I haven't met a convincing argument about why "affirming health care only" is an achievement. I also haven't found a response to why the state is paying for what is essentially cosmetic surgery if the reality of gender identity is innate, and not a medical disorder.
And despite looking for it, I – like many others, including countries apparently – have found no conclusive evidence that the social, medical and surgical transition of children has net benefits – either long or short term.
There is also a lot of grants, monies and scholarships and employment opportunities for those involved in Diversity Inclusion consultations, workshops, programmes and organisations.
Companies and government departments inviting in external advisors, are unlikely to then robustly critique any information provided. That's one of the recognised problems of outsourcing, your quality control is limited, and sometimes impossible to maintain.
the boundary breaking stuff really needs examining. Just been listening to JCJ talking about this with Helen Staniland. Jones talks about the ideological drive to remove all boundaries and social norms as a core principle of queer theory.
It's hard to explain to liberals, because of course why wouldn't we want to challenge norms?! JCJ's point is that we should be looking at the boundaries, seeing which are useful, which aren't, why and how we want to change them.
No Debate allows creepy vibe guys like Jeffrey to be promoting the idea that queer culture is inherently trustworthy and parent's aren't. There's also something odd about the position that trans kids all come from families where they're not accepted, and the solution to that is to create separation between parents and children.
Then we have queer culture doing dildo butt monkey and Family Sex Show with kids, and some wonder why there's a conservative backlash.
Will try and find the time stamp later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=0qcKkApunhs&ab_channel=HelenStaniland
If 'trans' is a range of experiences, some of which are gender dysphoric, then I can see why body modification is part of public health. But like other extreme interventions, it's about how and why it's used.
Of course, the ideology wants trans to be one thing, a big umbrella, and looking at the detail is frowned upon. That some trans women are gender dysphoric males from childhood, and some are AGP, for instance, would enable a much more nuance public debate about the impact on women's rights.
Trying to have it both ways.
One unmentioned aspect of the gender ideology that is repeatedly messaged to children and young people, is that they will be universally rejected by society, their families and anyone not in the transgender community.
How is this healthy? How is the suicidal ideation not criticised or rejected?
[image resized]
imagine thinking continually telling anyone, let alone kids, that they're not safe is a good idea.
there's been a lot of good critique about the breaching of guidelines around how we talk about suicide.
https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1388443636954718209
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1515011180762435586
The effects of hormones (or lack of) on mental health is another really interesting topic to delve into.
We can look at suicide stats and research for menopausal women to attempt to find a basic understanding:
https://www.hippocraticpost.com/womens-health/suicide-rates-in-menopausal-women-up-6/
Effects of testosterone levels in bi-polar women:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329970/
There's quite a lot of research on some of the mental health impacts of suppressed or elevated hormone levels.
have you come across international stats on women, menopause and suicide? Because not all cultures experience menopause the same way, and some cultures give women major negatives messaging about growing older.
Not to dismiss the impact of hormones, I thought Bell's sharing of what it was like to not cry and then cry was really important.
Interview Page because she's a public figure going through a tough experience, but putting someone up with gender dysphoria as if they are a useful expert on healthy GNC is hugely problematic. And Page gets the facts wrong a lot. This is dangerous.
Re cultural effect on mental health, the Gusset Grips video was good, where she spoke about avoidable incontinence restricting women's social circles, and how lack of muscle control and vaginal atrophy affected sex lives, and sometimes created distance with long-time partners that lead to separation. All those aspects might play a part in the increase in suicides and decrease in mental health for those age groups.
I have a memory of a television interview when Viagra was introduced. A person on there was saying that aside from known heart damage for men, they wondered about the social implications.
At a time when both partners may have decreasing libido, male partners in a heterosexual relationship now could take a medication to both increase libido and extend performance time. At the same time his partner may be experiencing vaginal dryness, intercourse pain and decreased libido, and so the natural decline of the importance of sex for both would be changed. Not necessarily for the better in terms of the relationship.
The varying aspects of this would be very interesting to follow up.
I distrust the pharmaco-surgical and symptomatic paradigms that dominate medicine, so a government putting the brakes on these treatments for kids is a good thing in my view but we shouldn't lose sight of all the wider political and economic agendas. If Javid was standing up to his own party on its appalling social policies including the erosion of wider health care and the NHS itself; if he was pointing the finger at the role his party played in creating the situation in the UK today around gender identity – eg address why it was his party under May's leadership which threw the dead cat of GRA review onto the table, and why it has done sod all to date to detoxify the debate….I might be a bit more inclined to view this as a good thing and not have the sneaking suspicion that this is just a bid to win socially conservative votes in advance of the local govt elections May 5.
yep, and it's not like any of the centre left parties can make that argument.
I assume it's politicking as well. But I also think it's likely that there are tories who just think what has happened is wrong and needs to be sorted out. I think most people will think that once they understand the issues and facts.
Do you mind me asking how much time you have spent looking into these suspicions, TeWhareWhero? Just because I know that with a minimum of effort, you can easily find information from both sides of the discussion, and sift through it all to find coherent arguments and data.
It's not a good thing that it is the conservatives in England that have called for the review. But as the review is something that should have occurred long ago, every delay may be creating iatrogenic harm that could be avoided. Cannot wait for either Labour support or government, if your concern is for the health and wellbeing of children and young people that identify as transgender.
Quite easily, you can put the politics aside and read the reviews from governments of the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, France and the UK Interim Cass Review. The Cass Review is now asking for permission to access the records of all gender patients so they can do the long-term follow up and studies that will inform of outcomes, and help design best practice.
SEGM – Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine is a good place to start. It has numerous detractors, but not of the evidence. Of the team, of the team's tweets, etc. Read and assess for yourself.
There are good articles regarding the transgender market, worth reading and considering. IIRC, Francesca has posted several times on this before and her comments are worth reading.
Here's two that may provide a jumping off point:
Constructing the Legal Lie of the Transgender Child – Part I
Constructing The Legal Lie Of The Transgender Child – Part II
Sorry, may have misread your comment.
Yes, I too have strong suspicions that the Conservatives are following polling on this matter. I don't care about that, as I believe the inquiry is overdue, and may prevent further harms.
I despair that the left-wing politicians are not concerned about the evidence at all, and will continue in their political stance thinking also that it is a vote winner.
As you say this is political posturing.
It will be interesting to watch this unfold. Also, on Monday starts the case of Alison Bailey against Stonewall. That too will be interesting to watch.
Thanks for this post Weka.
so many active cases in the UK. I wonder if we can list them (and chronologically).
Not in order, off the top of my head,
Alison Bailey suing Stonewall.
Keira Bell, judicial review (she won), and then the appeal (lost parts if it?)
Maya Forstater, employment tribunal (lost), appeal (won).
The Labour MP who called Twitter to parliament to hold them account over abuse of GCFs, and the use of the word terf.
Baroness Nicholson's investigation into single sex wards and the gaslighting of a woman who was raped while in hospital.
Raquel Rosario Sanchez complaint to her university for not protecting her from bullying and harassment over her GC beliefs (lost, haven't had time yet to look at the judgement).
Fair Cop case, he won.
What's happening with the other cases of people arrested for tweets?
In Canada, the HRT case involving Jessica Yaniv's complaint about not being able to get their balls waxed by beauticians (JY lost, badly). I'll point out here that almost no MSM covered this landmark case, except maybe one right wing media outlet. GCFs live tweeted it.
Webberley tribunal investigating Helen (and Mike ?) Webberley on their postal service of puberty blockers and hormones. (Finished, but decision not yet out)
Update on Webberley case:
https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets2/status/1518532570618728450
Also the current Maya case: Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe
Decision due in May.
Those tribunal tweets were something else.
21 April 2022:
Girlguiding [UK] has settled a legal row [out of court settlement] with a leader who was expelled after objecting to its policy of allowing boys who identified as girls to join.
Katie Alcock had begun a case against the charity, which used to be known as the Girl Guides, in which she claimed that its bosses had discriminated against her for “gender critical” and feminist opinions.
Amy Eileen Hamm: I’m Being Investigated by the British Columbia College of Nurses Because I Believe Biological Sex Is Real
https://quillette.com/2022/04/08/im-being-investigated-by-the-british-columbia-college-of-nurses-because-i-believe-biological-sex-is-real/
Thank you so much Weka, and Molly too for posting and comments.
hope that many of The Standards readers read this post.
It remains hard to understand how this ideology has been able to infiltrate our institutions, including education and health. I still find it hard to believe people can think it is o.k. for children to be prescribed these drugs and life alterating surgery. The lack of critical thinking of people, particularly on the left shocks me.
Thanks very much for another post with a really solid base of verified information. How long can NZ continue with its Wild West approach to children and gender medicine when other countries are drawing back?
So far the New Zealand transgender lobby continues as if everything is fine even though New Zealand's practice is more extreme than the UK. I have noted the following ways:
There are no data kept on puberty blockers usage and the service is highly devolved even to GP and youth practices compared with the UK where it is available only through specialist clinics.
But they are used 'very freely' up to the age of 20 and prescribing is even begun in some cases where puberty is already complete
No diagnosis is required. The young person's self-assessment as trans (or even their parent's assessment) is all that is required.
Mental health conditions nor causative factors have to be investigated prioor to starting treatment. All that is required is that mental health issues are relatively well
controlled.
The child can be treated with PBs while not even being able to verbalise that this is what they want. (It is not clear what the NZ guideline means in this respect but presumably it allows for treatment if sex atypical body language or preferences with toys allows them to be construed as "trans".)
Social transition is encouraged (clothes, hairstyles, oppoisite sex names and pronouns) are encouraged leading to greater likelihood of going onto blockers.
Apparently there are very high levels of prescribing to confused children compared with some other jurisdications. (The only stats available are from the Christchurch youth clinic (based in a DHB serving a total population of about 1/2 million) where a year ago it was reported that 65 of about 100 (about 65% of referred children) were being prescribed puberty blockers. This compares with the whole of Ireland where 11 children were on blockers (in a total population of 5 million) and the UK where in 2019/20 161 children were prescribed blockers from a referred cohort of more than 2000 or a rate of less than 8% (the 2018 figure was 2519). See Bell vs Tavistock Judgment
The situation in NZ is a concern.
Educational capture, affirming healthcare. Still de-platforming and self censorship in broadcasting and print media making the #NoDebate unnecessary.
Even here on TS, the high possibility of iatrogenic harm to children and youth is a topic to be ignored. It's been a lesson in left wing politics alright.
that's shocking Jan. Do you know why we ended up with that degree of usage? I'm guessing the GP pattern varies?
Thank you for your post Weka. I'm so demoralised as so many women politicians, including ex teachers who you’ll would think they know what a child is.
have failed to look into the unintended consequences of their policies on minors.
I'll also mention Suzanne Doig, General Manager Policy group, Internal Affairs, who advised the Government with some sloppy assessment on risk and consequences.
Apparently MoH has no stats on gender affirming surgeries. If any are done in NZ it's via the private sector with either private money or publicly funded.
Although the Government has allocated even more money.I believe the intention is to attract surgeons from overseas, to deal with the waiting lists..
There was a US doctor (specialist) on twitter today saying that males who take puberty blockers before puberty and then transition have female physiology. This is where we are at.
https://twitter.com/TheShariBambino/status/1518238116749926402
Australian university based endocrinologist who (unconvincingly) spoke last week on SBS episode on transwoman in sport.
Obviously, thinking she could have done better she then posted a somewhat juvenile thread on Twitter where both her argument and evidence were torn to shreds.
https://youtu.be/STX1GCxYEIc
https://twitter.com/DrAdaCheungAU/status/1517021793554677761
very interesting programme, thanks.
Do you know what the universal sport option is about? The women who worked on the UK protocol said it's likely to be the future of sport, and that the requirement to define oneself by sex or gender would be removed, probably with modified rules and/or scoring.
around 45m
I believe they are referring to the guide issued by the UK Sports Council in 2021. One of the commentators was involved with it:
https://equalityinsport.org/resources/index.html
From guidance:
All those people who watched the Lake Alice abuse in care enquiry and wondered how people could have just allowed that to happen can stop wondering. They're allowing something similar to happen right now and thinking of themselves as "progressive" for endorsing it.
100% Psycho Milt
Yep.
Cross posting from OM, and noting the number of UK people pointing to the Jimmy Saville case and why people were blind. I don't think the Family Sex Show people are paedophiles, but I do think they are blind and complicit in creating a society with less safeguarding, and in this too they get progressive brownie points.
https://twitter.com/wekatweets/status/1518337821831958528
That case was just bizarre. I'm nothing like as smart as Jane Clare Jones, but you don't have to be a genius to figure out that a social theory based on transgressing social norms (queer theory) is going to run into trouble because some social norms exist for really good reasons. In short, if you don't want people to think you're a paedophile, don't go trying to involve children in adult sexuality.
People who lack boundaries.
Psycho Milt – here is but another example of an unproven medical intervention – the lobotomy, it even won a nobel prize for medicines in 1949.
It compares itself well with the transmedicine…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCc5RPekftM
Wow. That was exceptionally powerful. Difficult truths to hear, but should be necessary viewing for anyone engaging this debate. It’s bad medicine driven by a mad social contagion.
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1511745414055497728?s=21&t=u9XolMmlpXjtpT8W7G_zCQ
🧵:
https://twitter.com/jamesbarry1789/status/1505332036214657031?s=21&t=u9XolMmlpXjtpT8W7G_zCQ
Thanks Jan for an update re NZ. As Weka says shocking that we ended up with this degree of usage. The push to affirm and confirm young peoples gender identity by activists has likely fuelled this situation.
Children who buy into this toxic slime are often suffering from psychological trauma, were abused in some way, or have autistic traits. Often very intelligent, but they spend far too much time on devices taking in false narratives espoused by influencers (the worst humans in our culture IMHO). Dysphoria is a defense mechanism of abuse victims where one spends a lot of time in a fantasy world not connected to their physical reality.
I have been blocked by a few prominent NZ lefty tweeters for contradicting some of their more obnoxious strident claims in defense of trans ideology. The cartoonist Tatsuya Ishida captures the gender crticial position well. Trans activists feel deeply that they are on the progressive side, defending the oppressed, and that a bunch of radical feminists and JKR became horrible bigots overnight. These people are either cognitively limited or sincerely misguided.
Critics of the new gender ideology sometimes overstep, and no doubt there is occasional bigoted abuse of trans people, which I deplore. However several transgender folks are also critical of the ideological capture of public institutions, cancel culture, doxxing, and denial of reality from the trans-activist radicals.
All true, Rob.
The more I read from transgender authors and allies, there almost seems to be a thread of jingoism there as well. Encouraging others to fight the good fight, and put their bodies on the line in this 'war'.
….and, right on cue….
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2022/04/27/free-speech-alert-aut-university-disgracefully-cancel-feminist-event-on-campus/