Star post
Should a bloke be allowed to know if his “girlfriend” (or “bride”) is also a bloke?
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”
Transgenderism is gender fraud. Fraud always has victims.
#GenderFraud
This post links to a 2005 court case you probably haven’t read about yet.
Transgenderism
The trans doctrine, you ought by now to have noticed, teaches that some people have a valid grievance, because they were conceived as babies who grew bodies that were of the wrong sexes for the purpose of housing human souls of the particular genders which the aggrieved now feel they want to be.
As a society, we are encouraging the aggrieved to pretend to be men when really they are women, and vice versa. But such gender fraud, like any fraud, has victims.
A fellow was sectioned for three days in January 2000. The psychiatrist who sectioned him considered a prediction that he had made to be delusional. This brief loss of liberty did no good at all for his then flourishing career.
What was that “delusional” prediction?
The temporary mental patient had insinuated that there was a conspiracy afoot, which he predicted would wreak havoc in years to come. It was a conspiracy, he said, to force people, by law, to accept men as women if those men said they wanted to be accepted as women, and vice versa., even if this contradicted their consciences.
The court case in 2005
In 2004, whilst listening in bed to the News Quiz on Radio 4 with my then wife Mpumi Allman (nee Maqungo, deceased 2006), I learnt of a so-called Gender Recognition Bill. This (I felt at the time) marked the public unveiling of the no-longer-clandestine conspiracy about which the former mental patient had theorised four years earlier, getting himself sectioned.
I reckoned I knew then what my duty was. I did what I believed I had to do, in the light of this development. I went into activist mode, and opposed the Gender Recognition Bill.
Baroness O’Cathain and Lord Tebbit led the valiant opposition to the Gender Recognition Bill in the Lords. I thank both for their courtesy to me. I regret that my warnings only came to their attention too late for them to argue against the bill in the most effective way possible, as Lord Tebbit admitted afterwards. He wrote to the effect that it had ben a pity that nobody had used my argument against the Bill during the debate in the Lords.
After the final division was lost in the Lords, I was honoured that Lady O’Cathain phoned me before she went off to meet with Simon Calvert in a hotel.
Once the Act had been passed, I sued the government, hoping for publicity, if not actually to prevent the Act’s implementation:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ALLMAN
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSTITUTION AFFAIRS
It is now 2017. Recently, there appears to have been some fresh stirrings of interest in the unsuccessful court case that I brought way back in 2005, to challenge the Gender Recognition Act, as the bill soon became. This recent flurry of renewed interest in this past escapade of mine, has prompted me, twelve years on, to bring relevant court papers (including the judgment of Sullivan J) and contemporary press releases together, concatenated into one document, for the curious to read, here:
Relevance?
Last Tuesday, I learnt of a recent article, which, rather strikingly, draws attention to the mentality that is gradually becoming compulsory, as predicted in that chap’s conspiracy theory of 2000, which led to his being sectioned for three days, losing his job, and (later) to the court case that I brought myself, when that person’s year 2000 nightmare began to come true, in 2005.
Transgender Activist – Straight Guys Have ‘No Right’ To Reject Trans Women
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that my application was “inadmissible”. That was because I was already married, and therefore not at immediate risk myself, of marrying another bloke unawares, deceived into believing that my “bride” was a woman, by the use of a falsified birth certificate provided by the queen. Ironically, my wife died on 26th May 2006, two days after I had opened that letter from Strasbourg.
What do you think? Was the bloke who was sectioned in 2000 right after all? Should my arguments have won, in court, in 2005 (London) and 2006 (Strasbourg)? Or do you agree with Mr Justice Sullivan, and the ECHR?
Why do you think whatever you do think?
Have you read the papers I have linked to in this post? What did you think of them?
Cet animal est très méchant. Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.
JohnAllman.UK 
I remember chatting up a woman in a bar years ago when I was 19. She was gorgeous, she was into exactly the same things as me, read the same books. We got on well in conversation. Believe me when I say I was disappointed to learn that ‘she’ was actually a ‘he’. I’m glad my mate whispered in my ear about it otherwise after another pint or two I would have been all over this person and nagging to take her/him back to my room.
Would it have made much difference if I had taken him/her back to my room? Your damn right it would have. Of course she/he should have told me he/she wasn’t a ‘she’ but a ‘him’.
If I had known then what I know now, my reaction would be exactly the same. Nowadays there are over 70 different gender orientations and each one demanding to be spoken to in a ‘specific’ way each with its own prefix. In Canada, if you don’t abide by it, then you could land up in front of the judges for discrimination.
So yes, I believe men have a ‘right’ to know what the biological sex is of a potential partner. That way an informed decision can be made on wether to pursue or not pursue, that being the question. We are not being discriminatory, no. If transgender men who call themselves women still have male parts then they have no ‘right’ to withhold such information from another ‘interested/decieved’ human. It’s common sense to avoid embarrassment on both sides.
‘Hello, I like you.’ said Babs.
‘Yes, you’re nice, fancy coming back to my place.’ replied Steve.
‘I would love to.’ Babs said,’ But I must tell you, I’m really a man.’
‘Thats ok.’ said Steve, ‘Im really a girl, but tomorrow I’m a man, and on Sunday I’m neither.’
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
What a mess.
The answer is Yes. A man has the right to know whether the person he dates is a man or a woman. A woman has the same right to know whether the person she dates is a woman or a man. And every individual has a moral duty to be truthful about their sex, because nobody has the right to tell lies.
I admire you a lot for bringing this legal case and you should have won. Lord Tebbit is a man of sterling common sense and those who foresaw the calamity of trannie ideology taking over were very far-sighted. Tax payers should not have to foot the bill for this, which is enormous. The treatments are a burden on the NHS. In our local charity shops I have seen a haggard, six-foot-one man with skinny hips and a withered face, dressed in a skirt and high heels, carrying a handbag and browsing the racks of party frocks. The nail varnish just draws attention to his large hands, and the shoes are always too small for him. He keeps trying them on, like Cinderella’s ugly sisters.
There are now more and more sad ex-trannies, who admit that their life of delusion led them down a wrong path. They poisoned themselves with huge doses of fake hormones and had operations to mutilate their bodies. The result was they became deeply depressed eunuchs, bald or bearded ladies, and an embarrassment to their families. Many wake up in late middle age and realise that they have wasted their efforts pursuing an illusion, and they have a high suicide rate. These ex-trannies need our love and support and they should be sent into schools to talk to children and warn them against making that mistake.
Pingback: Gender Recognition Act consultation ends Friday | JohnAllman.UK
Very good argument indeed, and one which I shall use.
Have you seen the film The Crying Game? I have, and that was released back in 1992.
Thank you for your kind words.
There seems to be a resistance to the gender fraud argument against transgenderism, on the supposed basis that romantic involvement with someone one does not realise is transgendered is slightly comical rather than life-wreckingly tragic, and in any case not something God would allow to happen to the godly, or even the vigilant, so it doesn’t matter if a few idiots are tricked. The same attitude is applied to divorce. Many church-goers seek to punish the divorced, as though it was necessarily their own fault that their spouses had proved faithless.
It is also as though people generally believe that all who (for example) live as female even though they are male, would surely stop short of deceiving somebody they lusted after into becoming romantically involved with them on false pretences, or that somebody transgendered is always recognisable as such (it is easy to search the internet for images that refute that fallacy), so that anybody tricked must at some level *want* to be tricked, or that being tricked isn’t any great hardship, and a few victims of gender fraud is a small price to pay for the feelings of “trans people”.
I’ve heard of that film, The Crying Game, but I don’t remember clearly actually watching all of it. I’ve read a summary of the plot on Wikipedia since your comment, and I think I may have seen parts of the movie in the past.
Well done for putting your head above the parapet and all the best with your future efforts. I don’t know which way to turn (no pun intended!) nowadays, the world has gone stark raving. As someone of advanced years, I’m not saddened at the prospect of casting off my mortal coil, I’ve been left behind and much prefer yesteryear. The youngsters of today will never have the good life of my generation, so so sad.
Thank you for your kind words. You might also appreciate this more recent news, about a court case coming up soon:
The queering of primary schools
You are preaching division while Jesus preached “Love your neighbour”. You are a hypocrite of the worst nature.
The initials of my surnames tell you who I am. The Seven Seals are undone and guess what? I’m not on your side.
Christianity, aka Babylon, with the “Mother of all Harlots” (Mary = Mary the mother and Mary Magdalene) at its head is about to fall.
You have rejected Love.
And for that you will wail from the eyes and gnash your teeth. (Matthew 13:42)
Such is the punishment of “An Eye for an Eye, A Tooth for a Tooth”
What is your answer to the question I posed? “Should a bloke be allowed to know if his “girlfriend” (or “bride”) is also a bloke?”
I didn’t understand how your comment was relevant to the subject of this blog post, which poses that question. I am not preaching division, so far as I know. Division between who or what on the one hand, and who or what else on the other hand?
Thank you, John Allman, for your valiant efforts. Your Judicial Review was about a putative fraud, not an actual fraud. There are many actual marriage frauds. You know, I hope, that “transwidows” are the abandoned wives of mentally disordered men suffering from gender dysphoria. Swap “boyfriend” for “girlfriend” and you have exactly the same case which you envisaged. My now ex-husband declared to a psychiatrist after he had left me and his two children (then aged 10 and 12) that he knew he was deceiving me. The psychiatrist wrote about him: “she [he] knew that her [his] gender identity would get in the way of a successful marriage” – the one to me!
And yet the law does not recognise marriage fraud except when the immigration authorities are also being deceived.
To read about the fate of transwidows please visit Mumsnet “TransWidows Escape Committee” or my website transwidows.com. I tweet as @stranswidows (scientist transwidows). His children are of course also victims of fraud. I am quietly furious about the pain and confusion which he knowingly inflicted on all of us.