A Statement of Opposition to LGBT Activism in Schools and Corporations

A friend of mine recently asked for some help in crafting a document of opposition to the radical gender theory propagated in his workplace. I decided to write something that any of my readers could adapt for themselves in their own contexts, particularly for those with responsibility of care for students and children.

No written statement by itself can alter massive social movements. But I believe that if you say nothing, when you deeply dissent, you damage your own conscience.

I have also not attempted to write a definitive statement. Instead I have woven together some stories and ideas that together can provide some perspective and encouragement for those who, like me, profoundly disagree with this new movement, or who harbour serious doubts.

Please feel free to copy and paste the below and edit as you will. You do not need to credit me.

---

If one travelled back in time, perhaps only a decade, and announced to any audience that in a matter of years, countries, cities, churches, militaries, multinational corporations and schools all around the world would celebrate Pride Month, fly the ‘transgender flag’, and in many instances terminate the employment of, or ‘cancel’, those who questioned the latest sexual mores, one would be met with utter disbelief.

Sceptics and critics of this new morality are often called bigots, irrational, or hateful. In short, they are not tolerated, in the name of a new kind of tolerance.

HR and ‘pastoral leaders’ in schools often defend the platforming of speakers and thinkers who espouse this radicalism on the grounds that it is merely important to be ‘open’, to be in ‘dialogue’ with a new reality.

But dialogue is meant to be two-sided, and an openness to a new set of doctrines and teachers that decry dissent as intolerably hateful, is not openness at all.

I feel duty-bound, therefore, to place on record my opposition as a matter of conscience.

We are told that scepticism is the means by which knowledge advances and superstition recedes. People on my side of this issue have had our assumptions and beliefs endlessly criticized.

I ask the other side, therefore, for only a moment, to apply that same critique to their own position, to ask themselves a question:

What if this revolution is wrong?

What if we are not ‘affirming’ children? What if we are damaging them? What if Joe Biden is wrong when he tells parents that “affirming your child's identity is one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe”?

What if children choosing ‘identity’ in a maelstrom of social media is far from prudent?

What if science and ethics soon compellingly shift public opinion on the matter, and support and acquiescence toward this revolution is considered a kind of crime? This is by no means impossible…

In this sceptical space, I will not begin by espousing any doctrine, but by telling some stories of some women who have been caught up in this revolution in different ways.

---

Chloe Cole began taking puberty blockers and testosterone injections at the age of 12, after discovering her transgender identity online.

At age 15, she had her breasts removed and incinerated. Doctors pressured her parents to consent.

And then the regrets began. She would never breastfeed a child, she realized. She fell into depression despite her newfound popularity at her school as ‘Leo’. She contemplated suicide.

Eventually she decided, like many others have in her position, to ‘detransition’. She was shunned by all her new friends and admirers.

She is now 19 and is still not allowed to purchase alcohol in her home country, the USA.

Her ribcage is permanently damaged. She suffers blood clots in her bladder. Her scars on her chest have not fully healed. She does not know if she will be able to carry a baby full-term and neither do her doctors.

The drugs she took are used off-label. Their other, older function? Chemical castration of child abusers.

(Countries in Europe have begun to restrict the use of these puberty blockers. Sweden did so after a 14-year-old girl was found to be suffering from osteoporosis and spinal fractures owing to their use.)

---

Helena Kerschner also discovered her nonbinary identity on social media, as a teen dealing with loss and family trauma.

Her parents disapproved but her school counsellor researched child gender clinics with her.

At the age of 18, at her very first appointment at Planned Parenthood, she was given her first dose of testosterone. In her words: “The whole experience seriously derailed my life in ways I could never have foreseen when I was that fifteen-year-old kid playing with pronouns on Tumblr.”

She points out in her story that she is no fluke. In the UK alone, there has been a 4000% increase in pediatric gender service referrals.

The New York Times recently reported that gender surgeries tripled in the US from 2016 to 2019. They admit this is an undercount. The numbers since 2020, when LGBT and DEI activism escalated, have surely expanded at an even greater rate. These surgeries have extremely high complication rates and are enormously lucrative for a new class of medical specialists.

And Helena Kerschner is not alone in living with deep regret after attempting transition, transitions that are advertised and promoted heavily on social media by those who profit from them:

---

Dr Sidhbh Gallagher, educated in Ireland and practising in Miami, Florida, is a well-known gender transition surgeon who markets heavily on TikTok and other social media platforms.

She has given herself a rather strange nickname, ‘Dr Teetus Deletus’, and boasts of performing 500 sex change surgeries a year. Her current speciality seems to be ‘top surgery’, where she removes female breasts - what she calls ‘yeeting teets’.

One innovation she offers is in removing the nipples totally, to create a specifically ‘ambiguous’ look.

She has around 300 000 followers on TikTok, mostly teens and young people.

Does this seem to be measured and thoughtful?

Or does this rhetoric and tone accord more with some kind of fad, trend, or social contagion?

Contrast this with two other women working in the field…

---

Dr Gillian Spencer is a child psychiatrist, recently fired by her employers for questioning the affirmation model in care for gender dysphoria in children.

Her registration as a specialist is now on the line.

Recently, she shared the following publicly:

It’s a really hard situation for child and adolescent psychiatrists… and for any mental health clinicians who work with children. Because there’s a lot of organisational and social pressure to affirm children. But when we start to look at the evidence base behind the affirmation model, we find the studies have major flaws, and they don’t show sufficient benefit to outweigh the risks and the harms.

Previously, our discipline always took a developmental approach, which means that the years of childhood and adolescence were understood to be a period of incredible growth and change. We didn’t label children with long-term conditions, such as personality disorders, because we knew that a lot of conditions would ease with maturity, and indeed, the eleven studies that were conducted before the affirmation model was in use when they used a watchful waiting approach found that 60 to 90 per cent of children with gender dysphoria became comfortable in their own bodies with maturity.

I assure you that this is not part of a culture war. This is a really serious child protection issue. We entered our field to try to assist children to thrive, but the gender clinics have been set up, and psychiatrists are being forced to affirm the social transition of all children and go along with the idea that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones will lead to benefit…

There’s no evidence to show that the social transition or the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones reduces the death rate or improves psychological functioning.

---

Another child psychiatrist, Miriam Grossman, has also sought to publicize dissent from the contemporary belief that gender and sexual identity are distinct, or that it is possible to be born in the wrong body.

(How can one be born in the wrong body when you are your body?)

Grossman has pointed out the dark origins of these ideas - in the fraudulent, unethical experiments of academics like Alfred Kinsey and John Money (the father of ‘gender theory’).

Watch the video below:

For Grossman, this revolution has been something akin to a war on the innocence of children. Why must children be exposed to so much graphic, sexual material at a young age, whilst they are at their most vulnerable? Has the revolution had any measurable benefit for anybody? Was ‘health’ ever the goal here?

Christopher Rufo has shown quite clearly the contemporary political-academic roots of this ‘health movement’ in this important mini-documentary.

A highlight:

“The transgender movement is inherently political, using the construction of personal identity to advance a collective political vision.”

Rufo points to one of the leading transgender theorists in this regard:

---

Susan Stryker is most famous for one of the seminal essays on trnasgenderism, entitled, ‘My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix Performing Transgender Rage’.

In it she writes:

The transsexual body is an unnatural body. It is the product of medical science. It is a technological construction. It is flesh torn apart and sewn together again in a shape other than that in which it was born… I am a transsexual, and therefore I am a monster… In these circumstances, I find a deep affinity between myself as a transsexual woman and the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein…. and this body is destined to channel its rage and revenge against the naturalized heterosexual order, against traditional family values and against the hegemonic oppression of nature itself.

Other prominent academics hope that the transgender person will dismantle the heteronormative order, just as Marx’s socialist man aimed to dismantle capitalism.

I urge you to take a moment here.

Many medical experts around the world, including government authorities in liberal European countries, are telling us that these gender interventions help anybody.

Could it be that the revolution is not about ‘safety’ or ‘affirmation’ at all?

---

Whatever your position, it is undeniable that this entire field and movement is in flux. Miriam Grossman, mentioned above, speaks of how gender doctors have stated openly, ‘We are building the plane while we are flying it.’

Does this sound safe and measured?

Gallup polling tells us that 20% of American ‘Generation Z’ adults, born after 1996, now identify as LGBT.

Does this seem organic, or rather more like some kind of social phenomenon?

Consider also that, according to many studies, the vast majority of transgender youth are girls with prior history of mental illness before their gender dysphoria, and who spend increased amounts of time on social media, or have transgender friends.

It is no surprise then that some countries are now trying to reverse course, to lower the altitude of this bizarre plane, at least in terms of medical intervention.

Most countries in Europe, at odds with the US, now say that they will not allow for medical transitions for young people unless strict eligibility requirements are met. The UK and Scandinavia are notable examples of countries acknowledging that scientific evidence does not support such radical measures, with Finland’s top expert pointing out for the media that children who transition almost never come to terms with their bodies or accept their sexual identity, and the notion that refusing transition will lead to suicide, is “purposeful disinformation, and spreading it is irresponsible”.

There is a deeper question here.

Can you identify as something you are not? How does a man know what it is like to be a woman if he has never been one, and, if, at a biological level, he can never be one?

Planes that are built as they fly, crash. When planes crash, people die, people who have had nothing to do with the experimental’s craft’s design or flight.

Given all of the above, I would suggest that flag-waving, public activism in workplaces and schools, and blacklisting of dissidents are all foolish and ethically wrong.

For everybody’s sake, but particularly for children and young people, the bias must be against revolution, and for caution, especially in the face of biological realities.