Peaked

Where gender therapy is a crime

For legal/safety reasons, it wasn’t possible to release this recorded interview before last week’s EU announcement about banning ‘conversion therapy’ in the EU. It’s an interview with an anon paediatric psychiatrist who practices/practiced in Belgium, a country that has already enacted a ban on conversion therapy — despite having found almost no evidence it is happening. Conversion therapy bans make it legally risky to try to talk a kid out of their wrong-body distress. At the very least, it makes doctors scared to try it. But some therapists, like ‘Sarah’, are braving it anyway. Unfortunately they are few and far between. While activists — across Europe — failed to find much evidence of pray-away-the-gay type torture (which is the image your brain is intended to conjure up when it hears the term ‘conversion therapy’) there is plenty of trans skepticism about, and criminalising this skepticism is the intended effect of conversion therapy bans. Such legislation essentially performs the same function as hate speech laws that make it very legally dangerous to refute transgender core beliefs. However, this one has a particularly chilling influence on the psycho-medical profession. Conversion therapy bans are about coercion, because transgender wrongbodyism does not have popular support. Making non-compliance illegal is how its advocates get around the unpopularity problem. The soft-power machinery non-ban ban I had been hoping to get this doctor’s experience out there before the decision was made by the EU as to whether or not to make a law against conversion therapy enforceable in all EU countries, but she is under (stalled) criminal investigation for conversion therapy herself (she refuses to affirm the gender delusions of her young patients) and as we spoke, she was literally trying to keep a low cover as she escaped the country. Ultimately, last week, the European Commission decided not to issue a legally binding directive telling EU countries to ban conversion therapy. But the outcome was hard to decipher based on the mixed reactions to the announcement. Messaging from activists was schizophrenically lopsided. At first, both sides — the activists making demands of the legislature, and the legislature itself — seemed to be celebrating their joint victory. But then a lot of people on the activist side decided that, in fact, there was nothing to celebrate, and that they had lost the fight. That’s because the EU’s self-trumpeted proposal, in the end, was non-binding. It was just vibes. Or soft power machinery, as Athena Forum called it [https://gript.ie/eu-is-captured-by-transgender-ideology-group-says/]. Things got weird online: on the one hand, members of the NGO that had organised the campaign — which amassed 1 million citizen signatures [https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000001_en] — were filmed smiling and laughing in photos with EU officials. At the same time, their allies were posting Instagram reels about how disappointed they were. So what happened? The EU concluded that it can’t legislate in this area. But the fact that the petition even happened in the first place is evidence that they were chancing their arm, as we say back home. Getting caught mid mission-creep It’s not an ‘EU competence’ to get involved in criminalising talk therapy for genderfeelz. However, what is considered an EU competence has been subject to extreme mission creep in recent years*, and issues that you would imagine should remain national have become Brussels’ business. The whole conversion therapy thing was born out of a petition launched in 2024 that was actually an EU-branded, EU-supported ‘citizens initiative’. This bit is important: this petition would not have been possible — it would not have been allowed to go ahead — if what it was asking for was not considered part of the EU’s mandate. So why did it go ahead? How did it get this far? A few years ago when I noticed the petition campaign getting off the ground, I wanted to know how the organisers — a couple of skinny young gay chaps from France — were paying for the legal advice that they would need to determine whether or not what they were asking for was even something the EU can legislate on. So I contacted the official EU petition people to ask about their funding declarations, but there were none. So how did they pay for the legal advice? Surely they got legal advice? These details are boring and finnicky but they’re kind of important: it turns out that the legal experts in the EU Commission [https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/ask-expert_en]itself [https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/ask-expert_en] have to decide [https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/ask-expert_en] whether or not the subject of your demand is something the EU can make binding legislation on, before anything else can happen. (No doubt the vast EU network of NGOs are ready to help out with free legal consults, but it’s the Commission that decides on the legal basis for your request, if there is one). Let me spell it out: the EU told the activists they could make a binding law banning conversion therapy. They said: go ahead and get your signatures, we can legislate on this. But they have since decided that they cannot make such a law. What changed between 2024 and now? (Awaiting a response from the press contact, will update). I suspect that the EU bureaucracy was creeping the mission, and got caught mid-creep. Time was, anything gender-y was waved through the EU bodies — because who cares amiright — but those days are over. The reality is that everyone’s on high alert for social issues in a way they might not have been before. Turns out people do care about what constitutes reality and about keeping their kids out of the hands of state-mandated ideologues. Shocking. A legally-binding ban on sex-swap talk therapy would never “get past the Council” which is eurospeak for “it would fail to be approved by the more conservative countries’ leaders”, who are growing wiser and wiser to the social engineering schtick by the day. This is none of your business, the heads of state would have told the Commission, and they would have been right. I’m not a specialist so I’m just spitballing here, but I think that something that has been until now a bit of a grey area has just been shoved firmly into the black. So the Commission came out and told the gathering of disappointed youngsters last week that nope sorry, no law, we can’t actually do that, but here’s a non-binding vibes-setting document instead (I don’t think the lads should worry, it still looks great on their CVs. I’m proud of them in a twisted maternal way). The NGOcracy and their buds in-state just got too brazen, got some backlash full-force in the face, and knew such a law would never get anywhere. Officials were forced to (sort of) concede: nobody wants this, so it’s shelved. One of the ILGA-Europe enbies was clear-eyed about it. She said the decision “accounts for the limitations of the EU legislative process’“ [https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7460321436340015104/]. She also described the setup as a “tyranny of the majority”, which is apparently not the same thing as a democracy? I also think ILGA-Europe, who astro-turfed the whole petition thing in the first place, lost interest, and have shifted their energy and focus towards rule-of-law stuff. Enforcing case law is where it’s at, because nobody can do much about stopping that. There’s always the possibility that Commissioner Hadja Lahbib (with whom the conversion therapy buck stopped) and her friends realised that they will one day be the hook for the inevitable fallout of the trans scandal. I guess we’ll find out eventually, whether it be via tell-alls or tribunals. Looking forward to it. *(I am trying hard to ignore the fact that the EU now wants to govern that extremely intimate part of a sexual encounter where you and someone else decide whether or not you want to shag each other. The EU parliament wants you to make a contractual agreement before you f**k [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260423IPR41832/rape-must-be-defined-based-on-the-absence-of-consent-in-all-eu-countries], and if the deal’s not inked in the way the EU wants it inked by the f*****s, one of the two fuckees could go to jail. Yeah I know that rape is a problem. Yeah I know consent is important. That doesn’t mean either will be fixed by making sexual foreplay sessions subject to EU legislation. I mean what the everloving christ? The Heavy Petting Regulation? The Sustainable Dry Humping Act? The Third Base Protection Directive? I oppose this solution to the problem. I do not deny there is a problem — just to make it clear for the anti-gender movement academitards out there compiling lists of my crimes against the Borg.) If you appreciate my work, please take out a paid subscription or share this newsletter with your contacts. Please get in touch if you have any feedback, or corrections, or if you just want to call me a c**t. roisinmichaux at gmail dot com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peaked.substack.com/subscribe [https://peaked.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Ideological garbage in, ideological garbage out

I love the term ‘Department of Conclusions’, and I apologise to whoever I forget I stole it from. It describes perfectly my cynical view of the cargo-cultish academic and policy departments involved in creating the data that legitimises already-made government decisions. This pantomime involves a lot of cogs and props, and transmogrifying ideology into The Evidence is not easy. There’s a lot of effort involved in reaching a conclusion and then leading raw numbers and survey responses, gently by the hand, in the direction of that conclusion, all while pretending to be a neutral conduit for the truth. One of the foregone conclusions that I come across a lot in my research is the claim that the situation for LGBTIQ+ people is so bad that More Must Be Done, in particular, done by the EU, such as clamping down on hurty words, criminalising TERFs, and forcing more queer theory garbage down the necks of European children. There is reason to believe that gay or gender-non-conforming people have it rougher than many others in society. After all, many people with immigrant backgrounds in Europe absolutely detest gays and lesbians. There has been a sharp rise in the number of honey pot Grindr traps, at least in Belgium and France [https://www.rtbf.be/article/l-enquete-guets-apens-homophobes-le-phenomene-qui-inquiete-11492377], whereby North African lads trick gay men into meeting in secluded spots for sex, and then rob them, beat the s**t out of them, or even kill [https://www.fugues.com/2021/03/09/vive-emotion-apres-un-meurtre-homophobe-a-anvers-en-belgique/] them. And things aren’t going so well for male transvestite gooners either. They have been destroying women’s rights to sport, dignity, and privacy for more than a decade now. What’s not to hate? And what about all the green-haired freaks piling into your kids’ classrooms, telling autistic loners that the cause of all their problems is their ‘wrong body’? And the gaudy rainbow bunting absolutely f*****g everywhere, all year round? I’m filling up with hate just thinking about it. But the issues that are really causing problems for the LGBTIQ+ ‘community’ (not a real thing) are never hinted at in any official datasets. That would involve admitting to activist overreach, or violating the sacred lib code never to notice the unique quandaries caused by the mass immigration of men from patriarchal shitdumps into gay-friendly cultures. By far the most-cited data that EU government and NGOs use to justify things like hate speech laws, digital censorship, and trans-queer-themed comprehensive sexuality education, is the 2023 LGBTIQ Survey III from the Fundamental Rights Agency [https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2022/eu-lgbtiq-survey-iii]. The FRA is basically a factory for churning out evidence that just-so-happens to justify the decisions of the European Commission and all the similarly-minded political actors in that entourage. If the Fundamental Rights Agency didn’t produce the required facts and figures, it wouldn’t exist. But it does, so it does. The Commission drives the policy and political direction, and then requests backup from the arm’s-length FRA. The data is then put to work to justify the new policies. The setup should raise alarm bells, but without hard evidence that the Commission is actually instructing the FRA on what the data should ‘reveal’, the least we can do is examine the quality of the study design. I’m not a expert myself, but I knew there was a problem when I saw that they had managed to find nearly 2,000 people claiming the ‘intersex’ label, even though I know it has been very difficult to do intersex activist movement-building based on how few people actually use that label for themselves. How exactly was this cohort being defined? So I farmed the job out to some TERFs who know about research practices and standards, and they told me that the survey contained a considerable amount of what could reasonably be described as pure garbage. In the survey we find that ‘trans’ and ‘intersex’ people are disproportionately affected by violence, discrimination, and victimisation. But what is ‘trans’? And what is intersex? Does the survey at least attempt to define gender? Yes. Is it a circular definition? Also yes. Are crossdressers and transvestites, who don’t claim to be trans women, included in the definition of ‘trans’? Is it considered discriminatory to get the ick from them because everyone knows it’s a fetish? Yes and yes. Does the survey contain data on the number of natal males who claim to have had a cervical smear test in the past five years? Uhh, yes. As consumers of this official data, I guess we are just as much to blame for gobbling up the numbers we find on official glossy factsheets. Surely in the internet age we’d be better at spotting elite misinformation? The phrase “According to figures from the…(INSERT ACRONYM)” should not fool anyone anymore. But whatever about normies, journalists, surely, should be doing their due diligence and checking the stats to make sure they’re not rehashing activist or government propaganda. But I have never seen anyone examine the quality of these numbers or analysis that justify so much of the EU’s policies and laws related to LGBTIQ rights, as a whole, and sex erasure in particular. Every instance I have found where the FRA survey is cited in the media, it is cited as though it was sent from God herself. So I invited a lovely TERF and retired science communicator, Ruth Parry, to give me her expert opinion on the survey design. She’s got a background in clinical research, and she talked to me about the recruitment methods, self-reporting, and ambiguous definitions that likely affected the outcomes. We chatted about the clinically-sound DSD Life study, also funded by the EU in parallel, and how it contrasts with the FRA activist-driven one, and how embedding “inclusive gender” into research grant criteria will flub scientific processes, to the benefit of no-one. Enjoy. Take out a paid subscription if you think it’s worth it. And please get in touch with feedback/comments if you’re so inclined. roisinmichaux@gmail.com Show notes (AI generated) Guest: Ruth Parry Twitter/X: https://x.com/CACEnotes Key Topics Discussed * EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) LGBTIQ Survey III * Survey design: sampling, self-reporting, and recruitment bias * Activist involvement in data collection * Intersex vs DSD (Differences of Sex Development) * Clinical vs identity-based classification * DSD Life study and evidence-based research * Medical ethics in early-life interventions * Use of statistics in policy and law * EU funding frameworks and gender equality requirements * Ideological influence in academia and institutions * Interpretation of discrimination and violence data * Feminist and scientific critiques of gender identity frameworks Core dataset European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en [https://fra.europa.eu/en] EU LGBTIQ Survey III https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2022/eu-lgbtiq-survey-iii [https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2022/eu-lgbtiq-survey-iii] * Large-scale online survey across Europe * Used in EU policy frameworks, national strategies, and legal contexts Scientific benchmark DSD Life Study (EU Project) https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/305373 [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/305373] * Clinical research with medically verified participants * Focus: long-term outcomes, quality of life, treatment impact Medical context Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000411.htm [https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000411.htm] Hypospadias https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001286.htm [https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001286.htm] * Referenced in discussion of early intervention, functional vs cosmetic treatment, and long-term outcomes Clinical framework Chicago Consensus (2006) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16882788/ [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16882788/] * Established modern classification of DSD John Money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money] * Early theorist influencing gender identity models Legal Reference Bell v Tavistock https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf] Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust * Case concerning medical transition of minors and consent EU Policy & Funding Context Horizon Europe https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en [https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en] Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions https://marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/ Erasmus+ https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/ * EU funding programs requiring Gender Equality Plans, including “inclusive gender” frameworks Academic & intellectual References Helen Joyce https://sex-matters.org/ Kathleen Stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock] Book: Material Girls [https://www.amazon.com/Material-Girls-Reality-Matters-Feminism/dp/0349726620/ref=sr_1_2?crid=XPUET8T46JOR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._vK6_KM3PyfLMb2WarCnf66LCz3E2hLATJK4vlN3fj-s9xL2QurKsZDGVlS4S3tLJSDuG7BvBYj9EzxVfWoFdAiFGI0wUwKJMXwVRbPfukpKWPVx8Zkr_PNaBYCT4GRMOvP1Of_7QmnoA_qPNONLr0I62Fm-vL1xAYHp7BXX8OGLcdbPWHQzf8IYEcmBEmyFCn9WAXh3-9lsh9hurdE2yGCMVf3BX9LjnYEZtYX9uJA.Xjv0yMOfIkBFIpR8DCZ7cQhC2mA0GWzf6mADNH-FUSw&dib_tag=se&keywords=Material+Girls&qid=1777527715&sprefix=material+girls%2Caps%2C383&sr=8-2] Alice Dreger https://alicedreger.com/ Book: Galileo’s Middle Finger [https://www.amazon.in/dp/B00LFZ8OLQ?ref=KC_GS_GB_IN] J. Michael Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey] Louis Gooren https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Louis+Gooren Historical Reference Ian Huntley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Huntley [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Huntley] * Referenced as an example of how awareness of risk develops only after exposure to real cases Related Discussion Referenced in Episode Stephanie Winn — Intersex / DSD Discussion * Referenced by Róisín as a prior discussion covering: * intersex conditions * surgical ethics * clinical vs activist perspectives Research Methods Reference Randomised Controlled Trials https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1706053/ [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1706053/] * Gold standard in clinical research Cultural Reference Turf Rocks * Grassroots activist example mentioned in discussion X (Twitter): https://x.com/RoisinMichaux [https://x.com/RoisinMichaux] This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peaked.substack.com/subscribe [https://peaked.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

'Peace money' and Northern Ireland's Be-Kind elite

You may disagree with my claim that Sara Morrison’s was the most vicious TERF witchhunt [https://genspect.org/when-the-witch-theyre-hunting-is-you/] of them all — but it’s definitely among the gnarliest. I called Sara up to swap notes about our professional houndings. Like so many women, I too was unceremoniously removed my duties because of my non-belief in gendershite. But the behaviour of Sara’s hounders — the crème de la crème of the Northern Irish cultural elite — gave me goosebumps for its sheer psychopathy. I was unpersonned like a princess, in comparison. The people who targetted Sara are the #Kindest people in society: the publicly-funded ‘non-government’als involved in woke civil society charities. These are the people who are paid to ‘foster’ the warm-and-fuzzies: inclusivity, diversity, acceptance, tolerance, empathy, openness, fairness, equality, and equity, via public-facing cultural, advocacy and media organisations. In return, they get multi-annual operational grants. But the temporary nature of the arrangement means that Kindsters are permanently only precariously employed, a destabilising and competitive setup that creates perverse incentives (not just in Northern Ireland — the business model is the same everywhere and it’s terrible). It pushes people to exaggerate a problem that needs to be solved, while simultaneously pretending to be solving it. This leads to some crazy hijinks, a perfect example of which we saw this week with the story of the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s self-generated racism [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/21/splc-southern-poverty-justice-department-investigation/] problem that they pretended to donors to be fixing. It also produces only a small pool of jobs, and the prestige that goes with these jobs serves to amp up the stakes for everyone involved. The model is the same everywhere, as I said, but Northern Ireland is …different … from other places, to put it mildly. In terms of vibes, the place always felt to me a bit like if Bosnia married and divorced Scotland, and they got shared custody of 1.93 million fearful-avoidant kids. The country has a higher-than-average number of charities working on community projects because, you know, which is typical in post-conflict places. Many of them started out thanks to 'peace money’ that came from the EU, the UK and Irish governments and the Americans. And while a lot of them do very good and vital work (especially in the form of providing essential services), there’s also the usual parasitic gay-race-communism NGOs staffed by people who have to aggressively advertise their virtue in order to stay ideologically kosher in the tight-knit non-profit circle. The trans issue is an extremely touchy subject at the best of times, but throw that grenade into an already fraught and fearful crew of purity-spirallers, and you’ve got the ingredients for the most violent non-violent hate mob I think I’ve ever heard of. Northern Ireland is full of things that are unsayable. Sara’s bold assertions about our right to our own rape crisis centres free from crossdressing blokes seems to have provoked a repressed frustration around the trigger theme of identity that exploded with bizarre ferocity. It’s not good, folks. But you’ll be happy to hear that Sara's really doing well, finally. Perhaps her employment tribunal case [https://genderblog.net/morrison-written-closings/], the result of which is out in the next few weeks, should give her former colleagues, friends, and tattoo artist (who also denounced her) pause for some self-reflection. But we should probably not hold our breaths for any peace and reconciliation talks. As Sara said in the speech that caused all her problems [https://genderblog.net/sara-morrisons-speech/]: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.” You are here. Read this excellent story by Rosie Kay on Sara’s intervention at a recent event on censorship in the arts in Belfast. [https://substack.com/home/post/p-192763136] Here’s Sara on Substack [https://substack.com/@sarawildtimmy] and here she is on Twitter [https://x.com/SeeRedWoman1] Show notes (AI generated) In this episode of Peaked, Róisín Michaux is joined by Sara Morrison to explore the social, political, and cultural landscape of Northern Ireland in the post-conflict era. The discussion examines how the legacy of the Good Friday Agreement shaped a funding-dependent NGO ecosystem, particularly in the arts and voluntary sectors. Through Sara’s firsthand experience working in these sectors, the episode explores how economic structures, institutional incentives, and cultural pressures contribute to ideological conformity and risk-averse environments. The conversation also moves into feminist politics, gender policy conflicts, and Sara’s personal experience of workplace cancellation following her participation in a public event, leading to an ongoing employment tribunal. Topics discussed: · Post-conflict Northern Ireland economy and society· NGO funding and “peace money” dependency· Arts and charity sector employment structures· Public sector dominance vs private industry· Violence against women and policy failures· Gender ideology and feminist conflict· Workplace cancellation and tribunal case· Protest culture and ideological enforcement· “Militant kindness” and social conformity· Cross-community identity vs modern inclusion frameworks Historical & Political Context The Good Friday Agreement (1998) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement] · Ended major violence during The Troubles· Led to significant international funding and NGO expansion The Troubles (Background Context) https://www.britannica.com/event/The-Troubles-Northern-Ireland-history [https://www.britannica.com/event/The-Troubles-Northern-Ireland-history] · Sectarian conflict shaping modern Northern Ireland· Long-term impact on identity, politics, and economy Post-Conflict Funding & NGO Economy PEACE PLUS Programme https://www.seupb.eu/peaceplus [https://www.seupb.eu/peaceplus] · Cross-border EU, UK, and Irish government funding programme· Supports community, reconciliation, and economic projects Invest Northern Ireland https://www.investni.com/ · Economic development agency focused on business growth Arts Council of Northern Ireland https://artscouncil-ni.org/ · Primary funding body for arts and cultural sector Belfast City Council https://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/ · Referenced in building-use controversy and policy criteria Political Landscape Sinn Féin https://www.sinnfein.ie/ Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) https://mydup.com/ Alliance Party https://www.allianceparty.org/ Social Issues & Policy Violence Against Women Strategy (Northern Ireland) https://www.justice-ni.gov.uk/publications/stopping-domestic-and-sexual-violence-and-abuse-strategy Sexual Violence & Support Services Nexus NI https://nexusni.org/ Women’s Aid NI https://www.womensaidni.org/ The Rowan Sexual Assault Referral Centre https://www.southerntrust.hscni.net/services/the-rowan/ [https://therowan.hscni.net/] Sara Morrison — Case & Context BBC Coverage https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0gj42l4zeo [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0gj42l4zeo] Case Briefing https://sex-matters.org/case-briefings/sara-morrison-v-belfast-film-festival/ [https://sex-matters.org/case-briefings/sara-morrison-v-belfast-film-festival/] Let Women Speak Event https://www.standingforwomen.com/ J. K. Rowling Support Context https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/trans-child-women-only-spaces-skdtl3bcx [https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/trans-child-women-only-spaces-skdtl3bcx] · Public support and financial contribution to Morrison’s case Feminism, Gender & Policy Nordic Model (Sex Work Policy) https://nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/ [https://nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/] Repeal the 8th Amendment (Ireland) https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/civil-law/repeal-of-the-8th-amendment/ Emma Watson https://www.unwomen.org/en/goodwill-ambassadors/emma-watson · Referenced in context of funding support for services Arts, Culture & Institutions Imagine Belfast Festival https://imaginebelfast.com/ Northern Ireland Screen https://www.northernirelandscreen.co.uk/ Media & Cultural References Elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_(1989_film) Van Morrison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Morrison [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Morrison] Protest Culture & “Militant Kindness” Northern Ireland Protest Coverage (Context Referenced in Episode) https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ [https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/] · Referenced discussion of protests and counter-protests· Highlights tension between grassroots groups and activist responses Gay Not Queer (Referenced by Sara) https://x.com/gaynotqueer · Referenced directly in episode· Source of “militant kindness” framing· Critiques contradictions within activist culture Organizations & Networks NIPSA (Trade Union) https://nipsa.org.uk/ Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) https://www.flac.ie/ Key Figures Mentioned Jim Gamble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gamble [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gamble] 🔗 X (Twitter)https://x.com/RoisinMichaux [https://x.com/RoisinMichaux] 🔗 Apple Podcasts — Peaked This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peaked.substack.com/subscribe [https://peaked.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The faking of a sob story

Every country’s got at least one: a national sad-trans blackmail story. Sometimes it’s a little pre-gay boy who liked dresses so much he had to be castrated (aaaw that’s so sweet!), while other times it’s a secret crossdresser who turned up to the construction site one day SURPRISE! looking like a cross between an anime slut and a rotisserie chicken. These people often get plucked out and refurbed by state-paid NGOs who use them as a propaganda canvas upon which they create heart-warming bargain-bin civil-rights kayfabes, with the sole goal of shoving them down the necks of plebs so they can blackmail our natural instincts out of us. The sad-trans sympathy merchants themselves are part-victim, part-perp. They repeat prepared lines about their life stories that somehow align perfectly with the demands of their politically-motivated patrons. All sense of actual personality gets wiped off their storyboard in favour of the same old manipulative script. They become walking-talking messaging machines for self-interested vultures who wheel them out whenever you’re considering having an original thought like I think women’s sports should be for women. Go on, tell them you were suicidal because your library card had an M on it! you can hear the strategists whisper from somewhere offstage. But much like penile-inversion “vaginoplasty” surgery, sometimes there’s just not enough penis to work with, and the propagandists have to instead source materials from the colon, the actual shitter, to create a passable-ish stapled-together Humanising Case Study. Lydia Foy — the real one, not the shiny booklet version [https://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Lydia-Foy-Report-2018.pdf] — is one such case. He is an extremely unlikeable character, as is often the case with men who fall in love with porn versions of themselves. He’s a narcissistic, extremely spergy autogynephile who is completely immune to other people’s existence, and as such, he’s a very unlikely national avatar for The Most Marginalised Group To Have Ever Lived. But he was the best tissue the surgeons could find. Foy’s elevation to shero was not entirely his own doing, to be fair. As you’ll hear in this recording, he could almost (almost) be considered a victim of the lawyers who scavenged his family’s tragedy to make names for themselves in the strategic litigation history books. His personal tale of woe was an absolute dud, the lawyers found, in that most of the woe emanated not from him, but from everyone around him — particularly his wife and young daughters. But those grabby f*****g b*****s get no glory. There are no awards for supporting the women and kids who fall victim to a man in the grip of an out-of-control sissy fetish. As a result of Foy’s legal entreaties, which started in the 1990s, as well as other cases around Europe, Ireland got some stern tellings-off from the european court of human rights (not capitalising those b******s anymore). The Irish government was thus forced to introduce some type of gender law, but then spent years trying to figure out which type of law it should be. It was all happening during the heady apotheosis of the activist switch from demanding ye olde medico-surgical model of gender identity disorder, or whatever the DSM was calling it in by the early 2000s, to full sex self-identification with no conditions attached. Mental cases, gorged on Chuck Feeney money [https://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/subtheme/lgbt], with the help of ILGA-Europe, decided to make a big push for the latter, and they got their way in the end. Foy’s case was a big part of that. Thus accelerated a global cascade: if backwards Oirish Catholic small-islanders can do it, so can we, thought lots of other governments, coming to the pre-defined conclusion that the NGOs had laid out at their feet. Anyway, a filmmaker called Caleb J Roberts has just made a short film called “Lydia” that further murks up the waters about the real story behind Ireland’s path to legal sex falsification for sissy fetishists and sad, round, autistic girls. You’ll be shocked to learn that this film got made, and distributed, thanks to state subsidies, particularly funds related to producing “diverse” fare. I’m not dissing the filmmaker him/herself at all. That’s how things get made these days, and I don’t know anything about films, but Lydia certainly looks quite beautiful, and there are some nice metaphors in there (I think?) It would do the job of AgitSlop quite well on anyone who isn’t a raging contrarian, and it looks like that could be the intention: the film looks suspiciously like it could be a pilot [https://calebjroberts.com/lydia]. As it was screened on TV (like, the old-fashioned telly), it may be getting lined up for maximum normie-saturation. I discussed the film and Foy with my favourite Resistance Gay, journalist Sean Atkinson [https://thecritic.co.uk/author/sean-atkinson/], and Catherine, an anon Irish TERF who hates the faking of Foy’s sob story almost as much as I do. Enjoy, and please take out a paid subscription if you feel like helping me make more like this. I’m clearly not getting any state subsidies anytime soon lol. To those who are already paying subscribers, a massive heart emoji to you utter bigots. Episode overview (generated by AI): * The life and legal case of Lydia Foy * Irish High Court proceedings and European human rights attempts * Role of FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres) in public interest litigation * The European Commission of Human Rights (1997 application) * Gender Recognition Act (Ireland and UK comparisons) * Medical evidence and brain-based theories of gender identity * Media narratives vs court-record facts * Cultural references including Orange Is the New Black * Activism, legal advocacy, and institutional influence * Amnesty-related activism and legal disputes * Historical analogies and media impact (Emmett Till case) Irish High Court Judgment (Primary Source) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2002/116.html [https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2002/116.html] European Human Rights Attempt (1997) Pre-1998, cases were submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights (not the Court directly). This included: * Application involving legal aid refusal * Attempt to reopen domestic proceedings * Procedural dismissal FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres) https://www.flac.ie/ FLAC played a central role by: * Taking the case as public interest litigation (mid-1990s) * Shifting focus to birth certificate recognition * Supporting long-term legal strategy Legislative Context UK Gender Recognition Act (2004) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents] * Introduced legal gender recognition framework * Highly debated in Parliament Parliamentary Debate (Norman Tebbit) https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/jan/29/gender-recognition-bill-hl [https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/jan/29/gender-recognition-bill-hl] Key themes: * Legal vs biological sex * Concerns about long-term implications Medical & Scientific References Brain Structure Research (BSTc Studies) https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/85/5/2034/2660626 [https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/85/5/2034/2660626] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.378...68Z/abstract [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.378...68Z/abstract] These studies: * Examined brain structures (BSTc region) * Suggested differences aligned with gender identity * Became influential in legal and medical discussions Researcher: Louis Gooren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Gooren [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Gooren] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Louis+Gooren * Endocrinologist * Specialist in hormone therapy and gender dysphoria RTÉ Documentary https://www.rte.ie/radio/doconone/646740-radio-documentary-my-name-is-lydia-foy-transgender-transsexual [https://www.rte.ie/radio/doconone/646740-radio-documentary-my-name-is-lydia-foy-transgender-transsexual?utm_source=chatgpt.com] “My Name is Lydia Foy” (2011) * First-person narrative * Covers childhood, marriage, transition, and legal struggle ShoutOut Series https://www.shoutout.ie/know-your-queer-history [https://www.shoutout.ie/know-your-queer-history] Lydia Foy episode: Cultural and media references Orange Is the New Black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black] Character reference:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Burset [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Burset] * Used as a comparison for family dynamics and transition Michael Farrell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farrell_(activist) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farrell_(activist)] Council of Europe involvement:https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/ecri-bureau/-/asset_publisher/TlH7DYDQnFdQ/content/farrell-michael [https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/ecri-bureau/-/asset_publisher/TlH7DYDQnFdQ/content/farrell-michael] * Human rights lawyer * Connected to Strasbourg institutions Bill Shipsey & Art for Amnesty https://artforhumanrights.org/about-us/ [https://artforhumanrights.org/about-us/] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Shipsey [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Shipsey] Legal dispute: https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/09/18/group-founded-by-bill-shipsey-shocked-at-amnesty-legal-action/ [https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/09/18/group-founded-by-bill-shipsey-shocked-at-amnesty-legal-action/] https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/amnesty-international-sues-ex-irish-chairman-in-trademark-row/41992774.html [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/amnesty-international-sues-ex-irish-chairman-in-trademark-row/41992774.html] * Trademark dispute over “Amnesty” name * Lawsuit initiated in 2022, later halted https://www.linkedin.com/posts/billshipsey_dr-lydia-foy-i-never-got-an-apology-actually-activity-7299369043466088448-6-HP [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/billshipsey_dr-lydia-foy-i-never-got-an-apology-actually-activity-7299369043466088448-6-HP] Host https://x.com/RoisinMichaux [https://x.com/RoisinMichaux] 🔗 Apple Podcasts — Peaked This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peaked.substack.com/subscribe [https://peaked.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Inside the Council of Europe

This episode is a free preview. Please take out a paid subscription to hear the second half. Your support is very very very much appreciated. The activities of the acronymic institutions that macro-manage our European lives are a big black hole to everyone but a small circle of insiders. Their purpose is vague, their processes boringly impenetrable, and even the purported benefits of membership are ill-defined. Nobody really knows what goes on inside “supranational bodies” like the UNHCR, OHCHR, the OECD, the ODHR, the CJEU, ECHR, the FRA, and all the various Committees, Commissions and Councils on the prevention or promotion of whateverthefuck. But we are all aware that these entities are necessary and Good in some unspecified way, because they get cited all the time when our domestic governments and their lackies in the NGO sector try to sell us on unpopular social changes. Many of these “bodies” produce nothing of legal import, and are essentially just advocacy-toolmakers for activists and politicians, creating elite-driven, fake consensus that is then presented to the rest of us as '“international standards”. Such decrees and decisions, resolutions and recommendations are non-binding soft law. But soft law is a bit like currency — it has no intrinsic value beyond the value we collectively agree to assign to it; its power is reliant on network effects, with compliance self-enforced via more people buying-in. Everyone agrees because everyone agrees. And we currently assign a lot of value to soft law that comes from the Council of Europe. For a very long time, it was understood that we should all respect and adhere to these soft laws because this institution, the COE, is a particularly strong bulwark against a return to the kind of savagery that led to the Second World War. The institution itself was born of post-Hitler Never-Againism, with the stated aim to “promote cooperation on human rights and the rule of law”. But how does “human rights”, as understood in rubble-ravaged Dresden, compare to our understanding of the term in 2026? Did the war-weary decision men of the 1950s ever envision that safeguards against ethnic cleansing would one day be re-interpreted to include safeguards against, uh, psychologists telling a child the painful truth that humans can’t change sex [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-body-calls-for-ban-on-conversion-practices]? The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) churns out advocacy material at the behest of some of the most deranged activist extremists on the continent. If you’re a lobbyist who can’t get the legal changes you want at home, you can go to the swivel-eyed militants of the COE to help you generate some kind of guideline, or even judicial outcome (via the ECtHR, another nightmare) that you can then use to browbeat the plebs back home with. The various bodies within the Council of Europe will even do a name-and-shame every so often, to call out, country-by-country, who is adhering to their instructions. Bad grades are further used by activists to apply political pressure. Non-compliance can damage a government’s reputation not just in the COE, but also among peer governments of nations with whom they are considered ideologically aligned. The opacity of these institution very much benefits the extremists and their unpalatable demands. The less you know, the better. The media can’t figure out how to report on the goings-on here, because it all seems so boring and inconsequential. The activists wouldn’t alter this setup for the world. In an effort to get a better understanding of what goes on, Annette Pacey from Athena Forum shared with me all the goss about what she saw when the spent a few days in Strasbourg to follow the PACE vote on conversion therapy bans. She tried to sus out how it all works, but also attempted to convince visiting delegations that sex falsification is not, in fact, a universal human right or a “European value”. It was an enlightening conversation. Enjoy! Show notes Topics discussed · The structure and function of the Council of Europe versus the European Union· The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and its political groups· The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination· The resolution “For a ban on conversion practices” and its legislative trajectory· The role of rapporteurs, including UK MP Kate Osborne· Political group strategy, amendments, and voting coordination· Attendance patterns and procedural dynamics in Strasbourg· The distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity in law· The concept of “affirmation” in policy frameworks· The broader impact of Council of Europe resolutions on national legislation About the Guest Annette Pacey is a writer and policy commentator affiliated with Athena Forum, a European network focused on evidence-based policy and sex-based rights. She also has a Substack/podcast called Gender Lupa (see links below). She attended the January 2026 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where she engaged directly with delegates across political groups regarding the draft resolution on conversion practices. Annette speaks in a personal capacity in this episode and reflects on her observations of institutional process, political negotiation, and advocacy dynamics inside PACE. Institutional Context: The Council of Europe and PACE The Council of Europe is a pan-European intergovernmental organization founded in 1949 and headquartered in Strasbourg, France. It currently has 46 member states and is distinct from the European Union. 🔗 Council of Europe — Official Website https://www.coe.int The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is composed of sitting national parliamentarians from member states. Delegates are not directly elected to PACE but are appointed from their domestic parliaments. 🔗 Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) https://pace.coe.int Political groups within PACE include:· SOC — Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group· EPP/CD — Group of the European People’s Party· ALDE — Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe· EC/DA — European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance· UEL — Unified European Left 🔗 Political Groups Overviewhttps://pace.coe.int/en/pages/political-groups The Conversion Practices Resolution The episode centers on the resolution titled: “For a ban on conversion practices” The report was prepared by Kate Osborne MP (UK, Labour), serving as rapporteur for the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. 🔗 Resolution Text and Report (Doc. 16315)https://pace.coe.int/en/files/35742 [https://pace.coe.int/en/files/35742] The resolution calls on member states to: · Introduce legislative bans on conversion practices· Provide criminal sanctions where appropriate· Prohibit so-called “conversion practices” affecting sexual orientation and gender identity· Implement awareness campaigns and support mechanisms As discussed in the episode, Council of Europe resolutions are not binding law. However, they are frequently cited as human rights standards and can influence national legislation. Legal Precedents Referenced Malta — Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Act (2016)Malta was the first European country to introduce legislation addressing conversion practices. 🔗 Malta Legislation Overviewhttps://legislation.mt/eli/cap/540/eng [https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/540/eng] Spain — Law 4/2023 (Ley para la igualdad real y efectiva de las personas trans)Spain’s 2023 reform includes provisions addressing conversion practices. 🔗 Spanish Official Gazette (BOE)https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2023/02/28/4 Political Dynamics Discussed The episode examines: · Amendment strategies within the EPP group· Pre-agreed amendments negotiated with the rapporteur· The role of party leadership in shaping final votes· Attendance patterns on the final day of plenary· Strategic considerations among center-right delegates The conversation reflects on how procedural decisions and group coordination can affect the substance of policy outcomes. Individuals referenced 🔗 Kate Osborne MPUK Labour MP; Rapporteur on conversion practiceshttps://members.parliament.uk/member/4657 [https://members.parliament.uk/member/4783/contact] 🔗 Helena DalliEuropean Commissioner for Equalityhttps://commission.europa.eu/persons/helena-dalli_en [https://commissioners.ec.europa.eu/helena-dalli_en] 🔗 Thor Bjørn JaglandFormer Secretary General of the Council of Europe (2009–2019)https://www.coe.int/en/web/secretary-general/former-secretaries-general [https://rm.coe.int/16802f3d22#:~:text=Council%20of%20Europe,of%20Foreign%20Affairs%2C%202000%2D2001] Athena Forum Athena Forum is a European civil society initiative focused on evidence-based policy and sex-based rights. 🔗 Athena Forum https://athena-forum.eu/ https://x.com/RoisinMichaux [https://x.com/RoisinMichaux] 👤 Annette Pacey • LinkedIn: https://es.linkedin.com/in/annette-pacey-6a159b3a [https://es.linkedin.com/in/annette-pacey-6a159b3a]• X (Twitter): https://x.com/annettepacey?lang=en [https://x.com/annettepacey?lang=en]• Substack (Gender Lupa): https://genderlupa.substack.com/podcast [https://genderlupa.substack.com/podcast] 🔗 Apple Podcasts — Peaked This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peaked.substack.com/subscribe [https://peaked.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]