Did Feminism Give Birth to Transgender Madness?

 

Editor’s Note: The transcript that follows was automatically generated and lightly edited, so please be aware there could be typos or other small errors. The Stream is working toward a transcription service that does fast, accurate, and reliable work; thank you in advance for your patience!

(00:00) By the way, I’m I absolutely think there should be lawsuits. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure exactly how they’ll be structured, but you know, the medicine should do no harm. Yes. And so, if individuals can see how the law is broken, and if you can have group action, absolutely.

(00:16) We’ve produced really damaged people. And there was somebody a left-wing academic was on Twitter saying that, you know, he had taken part in all kinds of protests from the left over the last, you know, might even reach back to sort of the last 40 years. He had never seen this type of language. Um, really unpleasant swearing.

(00:36) The feminist attack on the reality of sex and its social significance is culpable for the way in which we’ve landed ourselves in this confusion in the first place. Some of them were urinating and defecating themselves during the protests as a noble show of dignity. I suppose like all of these things. You’ve put these very mentally fragile people in the position where they they feel desperately need to be heard and you’ve described everyone who disagrees with them as trying to kill them.

(01:05) Predictable results ensue, I suppose. Welcome back to Deprogram. This is the new culture forum show where we do our best to fight back against the forces of ideological conformity, especially among the young. I’m Harrison Pit. I’m a contributing editor at the European Conservative magazine. And I’m thrilled to be joined today as ever by Connor Tomlinson, one of the leading contributors at Courage Media.

(01:32) And our special guest this week, Caroline Fisk of Conservatives for Women and one of this country’s proud leading turfs. I I expect you don’t mind me saying Carol. Happy, very happy with that. Thank you for coming on very much. Um so, uh there’s been a Supreme Court ruling. There was a Supreme Court ruling last week ruling that the terms women and sex in the Equality Act in fact mean what we all took them to mean until around uh 2015.

(01:54) This overturned a ruling by Scottish courts that had upheld gender ideology as something truly instantiated in law. Do you think that this ruling is anything more than simply symbolic? No. I think so. I just want to be clear that we weren’t nobody was confident of the outcome or so nobody amongst us Turfs was confident.

(02:16) We didn’t know which way it was going to go. Um, we thought that the ruling, you know, if it went our way would simply, you know, just make clear that the term sex and women in the Equality Act had their natural meanings. Um, and it did that. But it went further than that. Just need to remember that a year ago or maybe it’s two years ago, most of us thought that woman and sex in the Equality Act had their natural meanings.

(02:44) But we still had all the problems that we have and that was to do with all the exceptions in the Equality Act. People took those to mean that men who identified as women could use women’s spaces. The judgment has also clarified that that they can’t that those spaces must be single sex. So it’s it’s gone a lot further than we had hoped and it it’s it’s the shift that we’ve been waiting for.

(03:09) I see it’s huge and and you do so many people are wondering whether this victory is merely symbolic or whether it’s consequential. You think that it is truly consequential the way in which we organize our society. It is it’s truly consequential and and in what in what kind of tangible ways will people be to see that being the case? Again, two years ago, we thought that sex meant sex in the Equality Act, but we thought that transidentified men could use women’s single sex spaces.

(03:36) Um, the ruling has said that they can’t. They’ve actually said that it’s illegal, that if you’re advertising a a single sex space and if there’s grounds for having a single sex space, that space must be single sex. That’s a huge change and it will have a big impact. At the moment, the NHS has a ruling, it’s called NXB, that transidentified men can go into women’s wards and hospitals.

(04:00) That, for example, you know, it’s now clear that that’s illegal. So, this is going to be a big change and it will spread out across society. I have no doubt that Connor has opinions on this because he has done an excellent two-part piece for Courage Media on uh the problem of puberty blockers and clinical trials related to them um lying ahead.

(04:17) But as as far as you’re concerned, do you regard this as mission accomplished for the turfs? Absolutely not. So, first of all, the results of the Supreme Court ruling need to be ripple out across the country. You know, every changing room, every school, every sport um needs to abide by this ruling.

(04:37) But then the second huge issue is is the medical issue, the NHS and the medicalization of vulnerable children. Now, that’s not really been impacted by this ruling. And so I think that’s where our attention will shift. Meanwhile, we’ve got to make sure that the ruling is understood across the country. Brilliant.

(04:53) And you you agree with that, Connor? I I on the day I’m very happy to to celebrate that the Supreme Court have codified the blindingly obvious into law and hopefully consigned the confusion about what is a woman to the dust bin of history, the collective hysteria that was going on for the last 10 years. But before I give my verdict, a a question that I haven’t been able to resolve.

(05:18) Can they just circumvent this ruling with mixed gender toilets by advertising them as all gender rather than all sex? Because then it’s not false advertising, right? Hello. Please excuse this brief interruption, but I’d be really grateful if you could please hit the subscribe button and subscribe to our channel.

(05:41) Our mission is vitally important and we must grow this channel to ensure that our content reaches the biggest possible audience. The best way to do this is for you to subscribe. It’s totally free. And in addition to subscribing, if you’re able to donate or join our membership scheme, please click on the link in the description or visit our website newcultureforum.org.uk.

(06:09) We’ve got great plans ahead, but we can’t do it without your support. From only GBP4 per month, you’ll receive a range of perks and benefits, including exclusive content. Thank you. Right. So, we’ve we’re already hearing a lot about that that um pubs, etc. should provide just, you know, unisex toilets or mixed gender toilets.

(06:37) Now, something I’m interested in, I mean, obviously we conservatives um respect freedom. This is, you know, this makes life difficult, doesn’t it? That we’re ending up having to sort of lay down the law in ways where we used to think that common sense could apply. So, I don’t like the idea that sort of every pub in the country has to be told you have to have single sex.

(06:59) But I think at a higher level, like for example, we already have regulations that in workplaces you have to have single sex toilets. Schools have to have single sex toilets. So we have laws that will kind of maintain this ruling in place. As you get down to the smaller organizations, I’m slightly let freedom reign. Let’s see how it ends up.

(07:19) So this is this is leads me on to the further question of whether or not the work is done here because when the likes of Helen Joyce were consulted on this ruling and you know she and Maya forat have done great campaigning on this over sex matters she was insistent to reaffirm that this is not an anti-trans ruling because the Supreme Court turned around and said even though we are affirming that men means man and woman means woman as a biological classification in law this does not come at the expense of one or another group

(07:50) and he quickly said there is such a thing as legal gender because of the 2004 gender recognition act which has caused so much confusion the definition of sex in the first place. There seems to be an unwillingness here to ensure that the entire lie of gender ideology is tackled on the whole and it’s almost like walking back the last stage of the left-wing gender revolution and just trying to say and we can stop here without them trying to push us back towards the position that required the Supreme Court ruling in the first place.

(08:20) Right. I think okay so what I would say is last week was about the Supreme Court ruling and the Supreme Court ruling was about a specific issue. So it wasn’t for that ruling to start talking about wider things. Um I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think it was their place to start questioning the protected characteristic of gender reassignment within the ruling.

(08:47) So I mean I think so that’s why we sort of we landed where the broad mandate. Um it’s true that there is a protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It means that people who identify as trans can’t be discriminated against in the workplace. I think it’s for anyone now who wants to to say actually I’m not satisfied with where we’ve landed and to pick up the next thing.

(09:12) So I think we conservatives are very interested in this idea of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and should think about it and think about whether we’d like to campaign to say you know that should go um and also the gender recognition act. Are we happy or should we campaign say actually that should go we can pick up these issues now.

(09:34) M I agree and I think but I think what Connor’s question gets at is the the lack of political ambition that conservative-minded people have shown on this first of all by surrendering this issue to many very brave feminists. I I give them credit for being brave feminists but there is a sense in which the feminist attack on the reality of sex and its social significance is culpable for the way in which we’ve landed ourselves in this confusion in the first place.

(09:58) Had had feminists not seen it as a necessary part of their mission to go after sex realism. In other words, the idea that that there are natural differences between the sexes had not seen it as part of their mission to go after that in the 60s and 70s in order to try and dismantle traditional social structures and and and in order because they viewed sexism as as a key pillar of kind of patriarchal oppression.

(10:17) um it wouldn’t have created a situation in which trans people would be able logically to say well if sex if gender is really just a social construct then I can identify as a woman and you can identify as a man and gender fluidity is on the table as well all sorts of other intersectional categories are just opened up by this Pandora’s box of feminist activism not only have we surrendered this issue to feminists in the first place and let them lead the charge we um also start celebrating when a blar institution inter namely the Supreme Court inter

(10:46) interprets Blairite legislation, namely the Equality Act, in order to affirm the reality that we knew all along. And people like Kama, I think it’s so indicative of his mentality that he says despite having said a woman is not a trans men can be women and attacking Rosie Duffield for saying that women only women can have cervixes only two years ago, all of a sudden he treats the Supreme Court as a kind of oracle of Delelfi.

(11:07) And the fact that it is said, so when he said, would you still agree with this prime minister that trans women are women? He says, well, the Supreme Court has now ruled that this is not no longer the case. and he regards that as authoritative and it’s almost as if we are doing the same thing by celebrating so wholeheartedly you know I think that um I mean like I I have been worried that our shared foundations now in this country are so shaky that um we need we need instruments like the equality act like we we have to admit that it was a ruling within the

(11:38) construct of the equality act which said for Maya for that her um views were protected her beliefs were protected. Yes. And it’s the Supreme Court last week that ruled that a man isn’t a woman. Now, obviously, we should live in a society where we can just see that as a natural statement of the fact.

(11:57) But I am worried and I do think conservatives have an enormous amount of work to do to say if we remove these structures, what do we need um to replace them with? Because I don’t think just manners and common sense work anymore. Yes, that’s what we used to be able to rely on. Now we can’t. So, what do we need? Also, because I’ve now spent a lot of time with leftwing feminists.

(12:21) Um, I just want to challenge you your statement. Um, I’m I’m really hoping that somebody is writing the full history of this movement, but it’s absolutely clear that uh like the role of of porn um you know, of men, sort of men enjoying identifying as women, that’s been huge.

(12:42) big business, big drug companies. Uh so I think it’s been a toxic mix of left and right. And I’m not actually sure if at the end of the day we could actually say one side comes out with a cleaner slate than the other. Well, I wouldn’t I wouldn’t attribute the porn companies and big farmer to being rightwing.

(13:00) They’re not feminist either is what I’m saying. No, that’s fair. I mean, I guess what I want to take this away from is any sort of left right. Um there’s really big forces at work here and and we need to look at all of them and we need to look at them honestly. Now the big drug companies in America have been and the hospitals um private hospitals have been right behind gender transitioning of children.

(13:24) That’s not come from the left. That’s come from big business and money to be made. So I just I think it should all be laid out honestly and I hope somebody’s doing that. You’re right about that. I mean the best example of that is fering pharmaceuticals funding the Dutch study which then became the Dutch protocol which then tabtock and and the likes of WPath rolled out across Europe, UK, US etc.

(13:50) I do think though that although those of us around the table would like to get beyond the left right binary on this issue, I think that actually there was a temporary alliance between those that called themselves feminists. Um, Judy Bindle’s a perfect example of this, who has a reflexive aversion to all of the other things that someone like me might believe about national identity, for example.

(14:17) Or the best example of this was um Helen had a spat with Matt Walsh about a year or so ago. I asked her on a different show about this and and she said, “Well, the problem with with Matt Walsh is that he wants to impose as a reaction to trans rigid gender binaries because he’s a traditional Latin mass Catholic.

(14:35) ” And I was sitting across from him going, “Yes, hello, me too.” you know. Um, so I think that taking this issue off the table now by devolving it to the the Supreme Court to decide this sort of supposedly neutral institution that both sides can apparently agree on the ruling of, then kicks it back to the cultural realm, which then devolves it down to relitigating whether or not the left or the right were correct about feminist disputes in the 60s and 70s.

(15:03) And I one final point if I may. I do think that we we shouldn’t appeal to the Equality Act because before the Equality Act came along and consolidated all this legislation including the Gender Recognition Act, there was the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act that did recognize sex differences in law and tried not to muddy the waters there.

(15:22) So I should we be appealing to the Equality Act and is there going to be a fight between conservatives and turfs now that this issue is settled? Um so by the way at the moment the reason we appeal to the equality act because that’s a piece of so you know but no I completely agree that consists should be saying um you know do what do we like the equality act what needs to be replaced um and we probably want might want to go right back start from a clean slate I just mean in the abstract I don’t mean in reality and then start building back

(15:50) the types of protections anti-discrimination law and I think there’s lots of conservatives interested in doing that and we absolutely should be doing that. And let me just say as well that in so far as rightwing means um like being in favor of porn companies be being able to do whatever they want or being in still there supporting autogyny then I I I renounce the the title rightwing or all too right I just wanted to make sure that I mean we didn’t sort of say look all of this has come from the left it just hasn’t

(16:19) there’s been a lot of forces if we count if we count neoliberalism as sort of rightwing then I would agree with that but like this is why I think that going back to sort of older traditional more traditional forms of conservatism like GK Chester nailed this himself when he said um feminism he he pointed to the weird alliance between feminism and capitalism when he said feminism proceeds from the dubious assumption that women are uh enslaved when they love their husbands but free when they obey their bosses or something like that

(16:44) and so I think we need to get back to that that sort of way of thinking um but but I I accept your point about um both technical colloquial sides of political are having having their fair share of the responsibility to shoulder how do you think the trans lobby are going to regroup and organize in response to this.

(17:02) And well, we’ve seen over the last couple of days, uh, I don’t know if you saw much of it, but you know, really truly nasty, unpleasant antics, antics, slogans. I mean, I don’t even want to repeat them, but I think, and now this is something that we really all do need to look at, and it goes much more much wider than gender ideology.

(17:23) We’ve produced really damaged people. And there was somebody a left-wing academic was on Twitter saying that you know he had taken part in all kinds of protests from the left over the last you know might even reach back to sort of the last 40 years. He had never seen this type of language. Um really unpleasant swearing, you know, vulgar.

(17:44) And so there’s something different here and something new that we’ve unleashed. And uh I think we all have to look at it and sort of ask how that’s happened. And then I do think conservatives really should have a voice in that because I do think it comes back to family and bringing up, you know, having stable families and bringing up stable children.

(18:06) And I mean I think it’s a we know we must never get carried away and defeat this. I think it’s a small number but but we have some very disturbed young people out there and we need to ask why and what we need to do different in the future. Well in in the sole audit of patients at Tavvertock conducted before the 2014 explosion in gender ideology where loads of autistic and and sexually confused young women went to the clinic and were sterilized.

(18:30) They found that the majority of their patients had five or six existing mental health coorbidities. So if you put those incredibly mentally fragile people, and I’m not trying to disparage them, in a position of existential anxiety where you’re told at all times society is on the precipice of a trans genocide that every institution despite flying pride flags from government buildings is trying to eradicate this group that has existed for all time and get them to kill themselves.

(18:57) then you’re going to put them in a sis in a in a position of desperation and especially if they don’t feel that they have much to lose and only everything to gain by getting the acceptance of their assumed assumed gender identity then they’re going to be turning to violence turning to rage rhetoric. I just saw walking up here near old Queen Street they’ve been graffitiing the sides of all the buildings saying sack Wes Streeting and and trans lives matter and all this sort of stuff some of them were urinating and defecating

(19:23) themselves during the protest as a noble show of dignity, I suppose. Like all of these things, you’ve put these very mentally fragile people in the position where they they feel desperately need to be heard and you’ve described everyone who disagrees with them as trying to kill them. Predictable results ensue.

(19:43) I suppose that that could not be more that could not possibly be uh more true given that this battle now needs to take a different direction. I I suppose the main areas probably the medicalization of children which Conn has just eloquently talked about and um the indoctrination of children like what what do you think our next move should be in so far as the medical establishment is concerned? Well um there’s probably three different things.

(20:05) So um at so even though we had the cast review and we’ve stopped you know routinely using puberty blockers on children through gender clinics there is a proposed trial and uh some of puberty blockers on children and um somebody said the child would be uncapped. Mhm. So that’s uncapped in numbers.

(20:23) So that means every child that wants to come forward or parents who put them forward can can go back on puberty blockers. Now we obviously have to stop this. It hasn’t gone past an ethics committee yet and it might not. But um there’s absolutely no way that we should be it’s it’s an experiment by the way.

(20:41) It’s structured as an experiment. I mean we shouldn’t be experimenting on children. So we need to stop the puberty blockers trial. Um children who are 16 17 can start heading into the adult gender clinics and start accessing cross- sex hormones. Again we know they’re vulnerable children.

(21:00) um and that that that’s a a pathway to irreversible harm. Um we shouldn’t be doing this to our children. And then there’s the surgeries. I mean the NHS. So taxpayers are paying for it. We three as we sit here are paying for it for the um NHS to cut young men’s penises off and um women’s breasts.

(21:21) They shouldn’t be doing it. Um just it simply shouldn’t be happening on the NHS. And so that’s something we really need to work on. There’s other areas as well. School’s guidance. Um so at the moment children in school are taught about gender identity. Yes. Sto produced school material saying that every child has a gender identity.

(21:42) Children should be able to trust adults. So children are tuned to trust adults. So if a teacher’s telling you that in school, you’re going to believe it. Um and so if you go home, you become a bit confused and you latch on to it. So we’re producing the confused children. We’re teaching them to be confused.

(22:00) So we need to change the school’s guidance as well. So there’s lots of different areas that we need to keep up the work on. Do you see um the Conservative Party or the Reform Party or perhaps some other political vehicle as the best vehicle by which to achieve those sorts of those sorts of aims? because those those are the kinds of aims that that aren’t I mean culture will be uh influential in informing the conversation but those will have to be political victories if they’re to be victories at all not or legislative so

(22:26) I mean we’ve got a labor government so there’s absolutely no way that we can sit back and wait for four or five years so I think the conservatives will be active on this reform will be active on this but so I am part of conservatives for women we work very cross party so we work with labor voice for women liberal voice for women and they’ll be very active And so, um, sorry, Labour Women’s Declaration, I should have said, will be very active, um, pushing all of these issues within the Labor Party. And

(22:54) there’s more and more Labour, um, MPs who are regaining their sense of reality on this. So, I’m really hoping this will be cross party that we should see this as a sort of some a wave that passed through our society that we should study and ask how it happened. But I think left, right, and center now will be pushing against it.

(23:14) Do we not need some sort of like truth and reconciliation approach to this? Because I became very squeamish when the second Cass report that the final review came out and saw Wes Streeting who used to work for Stonewall shouting for the rooftops about transincclusion and the need to sterilize children because they’re momentarily confused about their gender go, “Well, I’ll accept the findings now.

(23:33) The science is settled and I’ll enforce a puberty blockers ban.” It felt very much like an ass covering. Let’s be frank. I I don’t see how if it were any other issue, if he had been campaigning to give anorexics liposuction for over a decade, how he would be allowed to get away with it.

(23:51) Do we do we not just show a bit of cynicism regarding Karma’s sudden pivot away from.1% of women can have a penis actually to well, I’ll accept the Supreme Court warning? But how do we hold these politicians to account from trying to backtrack from a record which has led to the sterilization of children from a decade and they only retreated from it because it became politically untenable to support it.

(24:16) You know, I think gender ideology is very different to some of the other things that we’ve all been fighting like critical race theory, etc. It’s it’s really the big one. It’s it’s a lie that passed through our society and um it it impacted everything. um Barclays, Lloyds, Tesco, you know, they all promoted gender ideology to their customers, to their staff.

(24:40) Uh I definitely would like us to look at how that happened. Um how did it take hold so quickly? Why were people so quickly fearful of opposing it? I absolutely would like that to be teased out. I think because so many people are culpable, I’m really not sure that we can sort of say this person did this, this person did that because you’re talking about practically everybody.

(25:05) I don’t think you’re talking about practically everybody. No. No. You’re talking you are talking about the top of HR in Barclays. You’re talking about, you know, HR in in all of our universities at the very least. You’re talking about the Conservative Party, the Labor Party, the Lib Dems. You’re talking about everybody.

(25:22) So I I I think the history of it should be written that something really a lie passed through our society and was taken to be the truth but and we didn’t have the mechanisms in place as a society to stand up to it. How did that happen? And how do we need to structure our society differently? You know how we always have something dreadful happen and we say never again and yet we know that the next scandal will come along.

(25:46) Nevertheless, we say, how do we rebuild our institutions and our laws to make it harder for it to happen again? But if the same people are in the institutions, how do you rebuild the institutions? I mean, people, you know, it’s the human race. Like, I’m not sure that if you say kick out this bunch of people and replace them with these.

(26:03) I think you have to accept what this has shown is that humans are fallible. Not all humans. I think I think you can I think you can replace the institutions with the people that didn’t fall for this obvious deception. Like you didn’t, I didn’t. I mean a perfect example of this is the satellite clinics that are being run at the moment right the after Tavvertock was closed down are being run by the people that ran Tavvertock right so I agree when you go down to that level about this this particular institution this person

(26:29) should go I thought you were meaning sort of more broadly across society I don’t I don’t I don’t think that someone who ran a bank that said I think we should donate a sizable amount of our bank’s proceeds to supporting the sterilization of children should remain as as an executive of that bank.

(26:45) Like if they if let okay let’s say in in the 1950s it were discovered that one of the heads of the banks in Britain had been bankrolling the concentration camp in Dhau. They shouldn’t remain in place there. Okay. So again if we if we can have if there’s a scandal involving one bank right you do something about it.

(27:04) I think I understand you’re a Catholic. This scandal has proved that humans are fallible. Uh we fall for things. I I don’t think it’s that helpful. I mean, I I agree there was a small number of brave people, but you’re really sort of And by the way, a huge amount of other people were quickly caught up in situations where they couldn’t call this out.

(27:29) And I, for me, that’s a sort of interesting thing we need to look at. Like you’re talking about tens of thousands of employees, let’s say, at a large bank who all were told, you know, to put their pronouns on their um signatures, etc. Now, we know that if somebody objected, the next thing they knew, they were hauled up in front of HR.

(27:47) And we know that people had mortgages that they had to pay that, you know, men had to go home and they had, you know, two kids and a wife and a house and they couldn’t afford. We we got to a situation very quickly where a really good person would think I can’t say anything because I will get, you know, a non-rime non-rime hate incident against my name.

(28:09) I’ll get, you know, sort of pulled up in front of disciplinary at work. So, good people kept quiet. And so, we’ve got to remember that we can’t just say it was only the small number of brave people who were the good people in this. Um, and so that’s why I think it’s more important to look at institutional structures.

(28:29) There there there definitely does come a point where um that being uh opting for pu uh punishment over forgiveness becomes socially disruptive more than anything else. And if we really are talking about like completely um swapping out everyone from every institution and replacing them with people who are on the right side of this whether conservatives or turfs that would probably cause more trouble than is due.

(28:53) But so so but but nevertheless there does need to be a clear in my view and I agree with Connor on this there needs to be a clear sort of mark in the road which because one of the because human beings are fallible as you say and we we we all grant that um it means that the incentive structure matters a great deal because that is what directs people’s actions and if there are at least if the people who were at the at any rate um spearheading this the most like actually engaging in the sterilization of children or funding it or turning a blind eye within

(29:23) institutions and if those people are punished that will create a clear line in the sand which says that we are not going to tolerate this and never again will actually be socially actionable. The problem I think that Connor is completely correct to highlight is that at the moment a lot of people who who went along with this and did have that level of culpability, not just someone who put they they them in their pronouns on LinkedIn.

(29:43) Someone who had genuine real world culpability for the mass sterilization of children in this in this in this sort of 10-year period of madness. They are just saying, “Oh gosh, well thank goodness the Supreme Court has given us some clarity on this issue.” Well, we won’t do that again anyway.

(29:56) So the budget next week like that that is not that is not tolerable. I So to be clear, I agree with that. So I mean we sort of started talking about everybody in all institutions quite quickly. I think if we narrow it down and and particularly gender medicine um if there was evidence which was hidden um so I think you need to use existing law and existing processes and if you can see how and where people broke the law absolutely I would I would love that to be followed up.

(30:24) I think that would be right and proper. I I if I remember correctly during the Kira Bell review at the high court, Tavveristock had demanded to turn over uh evidence and they had withheld it multiple times and so I would think that’s a non-compliance of the law that has gone completely unpunished by all the executives at Tavveris that found themselves in positions of authority over gender distressed children again which so those are the adult gender clinics who refuse to hand over the data.

(30:52) So all the children in the past who have been down this pathway could be followed up. Now again if there’s something specific that’s actionable there absolutely I agree with you. Um by the way we shouldn’t be opening these new gender clinics. So there shouldn’t be jobs for these people.

(31:08) They should be closed down and uh gender confused children should just go through existing pathways with other children. So I mean I’ve just so something about how conservatives operate. Um so Liz Truss was the one who said we won’t go ahead with gender self ID but you can see that the conservatives were oh but we have to give them something and so that’s when we announced that these new gender clinics would be opened and that’s the kind of mentality we need to get away with.

(31:38) Conservatives need to have more confidence in their judgment and just say no is no. And by the way, so they’re, you know, we’ve created more harm the new gender clinics that um, you know, they’re supposed to be managed differently and governed differently, but as you say, the same people are there. So that’s something.

(31:54) So you have this mushrooming effect. We need to be much braver. Um, yeah, I couldn’t agree more. And very quickly before we before we close up and go to members questions because there were plenty thrown in because people are very very exercised as they should be on this question. Um, what was I going to ask again? Uh, oh yes.

(32:08) Do you think one of the points that I if I’m not mistaken Douglas Murray makes in the madness of crowds it’s either in the madness of crowds or in the war on the west I think given the topic is probably in the madness of crowds is that this the reason why gender ideology in the long term is going to run into the sand. It will do lots of damage in the meantime but the reason why it’s going to run into the sand is because sooner or later you’re just not going to get beyond the stumbling block of parents not wanting their children sterilized and you’re

(32:28) going to have instances of like trans regret dransitioning. We’ve actually had some of these people on on the show before, dransitioners. Charlie Ben the Aster, talented in many other respects. Of course, she’s she but she she is one of these dransitioners and her work her work is well worth checking out.

(32:43) Um what am I getting at? What I’m getting at is um do you think that parents should because one of the reason points Murray as I recall makes in Madness of Crowds is that the one of the reasons why this is just going to be socially untenable is because people are going to file lawsuits.

(32:56) Do you see more of these coming in the next 10 or 15 years? And might that do the work that Connor is hoping can be done by making sure that never again really does become never again? Oh, I mean I just think because of how humans are, there’s never going to be a never again. There’s going to be something like it or it’s the tale is going to live forever, I think.

(33:13) But it’s going to loom large over half. So I mean, by the way, I absolutely think there should be lawsuits. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure exactly how they’ll be structured, but you know, the medicine should do no harm. Yes. And so if individuals can see how the law is broken and if you can have group action absolutely um I think you know there’s been ideas about schools about parents you know challenging schools.

(33:36) I’m not quite sure how but certainly children have been lied to in schools and um teachers school staff have you know lied to parents and they’ve socially transitioned children in schools. So I think some of these times these behaviors are so abhorentt we don’t necessarily have the exact law as to how to deal with that.

(33:54) It’s just sort of something you didn’t expect isn’t it? Am I actually sorry I’m thinking on my feet it’s a safeguarding failure. Yes indeed and there’s you know very strong safeguarding rules in this country tort law. I’m sure people will be looking at how they can bring lawsuits and so they should be and I think some of those are what we need.

(34:12) Um the body of English common tort law will probably fill about 16 shelves. So there’s probably plenty for the lawyers to go looking for and and I’m glad that we’re all in unison that conservatives while savoring this victory realizing that it’s just a tactical one that we need to go on the offensive much more in order to stamp out this um this calary from our society.

(34:30) Caroline, thank you so much for joining us on the program. We do have some members questions for you because as I said, people are exercised about this. Connor, thank you. As if you want to catch that extra member section, consider subscribing uh to the new culture forum or rather joining us as a member.

(34:43) Uh please also subscribe, like the video if you wish and we shall see you on the next one. Our mission of the new culture forum is and always has been to defend and celebrate Britain’s history, culture and its people and indeed western civilization at a time when both are under sustained attack. We have grown from small beginnings to become the country’s most influential rightly in cultural think tank.

(35:13) Our content is watched and read by some of Britain’s most influential political figures. But now we need your help. If you believe in what we do, then please do become a member. For as little as GBP4 a month, you can make a vital contribution to what we do. As a member of the NCF family, you will help ensure that we can continue to produce quality content online such as our three weekly programs, Whittle, which is our flagship interview show, Newspeak, our panel discussion show, and Deprogrammed, which is targeted at Britain’s youth.

(35:57) As you probably know, in addition, we produce important documentaries such as our critically acclaimed six-part series, The West, a stunning celebration of the history and genius of Western civilization, and our ongoing documentary series, Heresies, with hard-hitting episodes tackling subjects such as immigration, gender ideology, and BBC bias.

(36:27) But the New Culture Forum is much more than a YouTube channel. We don’t just complain about Britain as it is. We provide real solutions and clear policies on how we can push back against the madness and restore sanity to this nation. Our presenters are now highly sought after and have become familiar faces across the media. Our prestigious annual Smith lecture and our regional and indeed national conferences have attracted worldclass speakers.

(37:09) Perhaps most importantly, we are the only organization on the right of politics that has launched a national movement without actually being a political party. And uniquely through our NCF Locals program, we’ve established some 30 active branches in towns and cities right across the nation from Edinburgh to exit and with many more on the way.

(37:34) We’re very proud of what we’ve achieved and our members have made it possible. In return, our members receive access to exclusive content, invitations to private events, free or discounted tickets to our conferences and lectures, free copies of our books, and much more.

(38:00) I very much hope that you’ll join us too by clicking the link in the description or going to our website new cultureforum.org.uk. UK. Now is the time that we need your help. Thank you.