Before I begin this piece I want to say that I know, from having done it for a while in the Home Counties, that local newspaper reporting and photojournalism is difficult. You literally live on top of your stories and reporting has to be balanced between reporting the news according to the house style of the publication and not upsetting people unnecessarily or gratuitously.

You don’t for example upset a ceremonial mayor by reporting gossip about stuff that is nothing do do with their job or suitability for it and neither do you publish the least appealing picture of a disabled child as it would upset the parents of said child. With local newspaper reporting you need to keep enough people happy enough to buy the newspaper. Sometimes this can lead to bland reporting as the publication might be legally and ethically liable for any story that creeps beyond, even slightly, the bounds of provability. A local reporter cannot, at least in my experience, although I’ve known some who do, ‘chase the byline’ at the expense of everything else unless they have a solid new position to go to, as every one of your subjects is on your doorstep.

The reason for writing the above introductory passage is that I’ve come across a story where a local journalist has failed to tell the whole story in a report and who has in my view certainly failed to tell both sides of this story. However, I want people to know that local journalism is difficult and that local reporters have lots of calls on their time and that I understand the pressures that local journalists are under and how easy it is to make mistakes or errors. There’s a lot that can be excused in local journalism because of resources and time pressures, however there is little excuse for ‘churnalism’ ie the apparent unthinking regurgitating of press releases from business or activist groups.

There’s a good example of what looks like a story mostly based on an Trans activist group’s press release in a recent issue of the Hereford Times that I’ve been alerted to. This piece, written by Michael Eden the Community Reporter for the Hereford Times, about a demonstration against the government’s decision to not disallow people who are afflicted with a body identity disorder, to be counselled into accepting their birth sex before they make any decisions that they may regret later on in life.

This decision by the Government was in my view the correct one and here’s why. Deciding to go down the route of constructing a simulacrum of the body of the opposite sex is a drastic and irreversible path. It should not be taken lightly by those who are immature or who are not completely sane in other aspects of their life or where there is the possibility that other psychiatric conditions are either being masked by the gender identity issues or where the identity issues are a symptom of another, possibly undiagnosed condition. The implications of someone making a hasty or wrong decision regarding gender treatment or worse a parent making such a wrong decision for their child, are absolutely huge. Because with transitioning the outcomes are not always that good either psychologically nor physically and the patient will be medicalised for life, it is reasonable that people suffering from gender identity disorders should, as a first port of call, have the opportunity to be helped to be made comfortable in their own unmutilated skin.

This issue is clearly not the same as conversion therapy, including the more kinetic and abusive kinds, in order to stop someone being Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual. Sexuality aversion therapy does not work and forcing people to be straight is as wrong as trying for force someone to be gay. We can all readily agree that coercing people into being straight is wrong. Therefore there is some moral justification for criminalising conversion therapy when it is aimed at LGB’s. Also sexuality, unlike sex, is often quite fluid. A person can identify as straight and later in life identify as gay or bi. No real harm is done to an individual, with the exception of possible STD’s and pregnancy, by a person saying that they are LGB at one point in their life and being mostly or fully heterosexual later on and vice versa. We are all fully human with mostly functioning parts and if a man after being mostly gay for a decade suddenly decides that they want to marry a woman or the opposite scenario then they are able to do so.

The person who changes their sexuality does not have to deal with the medical issues that those who detransition from being trans have to contend with. The previously gay man who suddenly falls in love with a woman still has his penis and testicles, he’s just using them in a different way than he previously used them. However for a detransitioner that option is closed to them. The detransitioner is in the invidious position where they have lost the very body parts and functionality due to hasty decisions or outside influence in the past, that they may well now need.

What bothered me mostly, although there are other issues that I will go into later, about Mr Eden’s article was that it did not present an opposite side to the claims being made by the Trans activists. It looked for all the world like a regurgitated press release.

Now of course I’m not saying that Mr Eden deliberately put only one side to this issue in his piece as I can easily see how pressure of work and deadlines could have ended up with this one sided article being published. The error could even be down to the sub-editors rather than the reporter but I would expect that not only should a local reporter and newspaper be careful about press releases about controversial subjects, they should also be more on top of their beat. This is because there is a lot of stuff by which I mean background information that is missing from this tale. Some of the SIGINT that I’ve uncovered recently regarding this local group of trans demonstrators, shows me that there is a different story lurking in the background.

To show what gives me concern I will be using some excerpts from the Hereford Times article. As is usual policy for this blog the original text will be in italics where as this blogger’s comments will be in plain text.

Mr Eden’s article said:

A PROTEST has been held in Hereford to demand that transgender people be included in a conversion practices ban proposed by the Government.

As I have stated before there are damned good reasons why helping people to come to terms with their birth sex is less damaging in the long term than funnelling them willy nilly (pun intended) onto a transition path. You can change your sexuality with little or no harm done if you decide at some point in your life to be gay bi or straight, but you can’t fully revert back to your birth sex after gender transition. I know that as I’ve encountered more than a few individuals who have taken the transition path and lived what can only be described as a ‘half life’ after deciding that they made the wrong decision for the wrong reasons when they transitioned. There’s no comparison between coercive acts used to stop someone being LBG and where the coercive acts are illegal anyway as they would be an Offence Against The Person and helping people to deal with a body image disorder and be settled in their skin.

The government has faced criticism after a series of U-turns last week on its backtracking on commitments to include transgender people in the ban.

Criticism from whom? It would have been nice for the readers to have been told where the criticism was coming from. Those of us who are familiar with this story understand that the majority of criticism has come from Trans groups and especially those Trans groups who have a vested interest in promoting their gender ideology, often at the expense of everyone else including women and children. The government foolishly signed up to treating trans therapy issues as similar to the issue of people being coerced into being straight when they were not. But this is not the case. There are differences, big ones. The reason as I see it for the U Turn from the government over the inclusion of trans issues in this bill was the realisation by government that the trans issues are different and that people, in particular those with vulnerabilities, should be allowed to be counselled away from a transition path if that is what is best for that individual. This is a position vehemently opposed by trans groups who appear to believe that there should be a free for all with regards transition, including self ID in its various forms and damn the consequences.

According to the British Psychological Society (BPS), tries to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The BPS and other professional bodies, including NHS England and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have warned all kinds of conversion therapy are “unethical and potentially harmful”.

There is an ‘appeal to authority’ argument at work here that fails to comprehend that the BPS, NHS England (where women patients are being pressured to accept trans nurses) and some of the Royal Colleges have to a greater or lesser extent been ideologically captured by the gender identity cult. Because of this ideological capture by trans activists, asking questions about this cult like adherence to the ideology of trans within these organisations is difficult, if not impossible.

The case of James Esses a trainee counsellor who was kicked off of his Psychotherapy Masters university course for raising concerns about the safeguarding of children with regards to gender identity treatment, is a prominent indicator of ideological capture by an institution that trains psychotherapists. It’s not at all beyond the realms of possibility that the BPS and the other entities mentioned have also been ideologically captured by the promoters of gender ideology. However it’s not just the Esses case that shows the undue influence of gender ideology at high level, there is also the case of an academic who was refused permission to study the phenomena of those who decide to detransition. The academic was informed that the study would be ‘politically incorrect’ and would attract the negative attention of trans activists.

It is not at all clear where exactly the quote in Mr Eden’s piece about ‘unethical and potentially harmful’ came from but I went and looked at the statement on conversion therapy on the BPS site and it’s much more nuanced than maybe those in the trans activist community would like. If the quote is from the BPS, then there is much that the Hereford Times’s information source appears to have taken out of context. A key statement reads:

In its response to the government’s public consultation, the BPS stated that proposals should seek to protect all who are at risk of harm from conversion therapy.

The society also made clear that it is important that the legislation does not interfere with competent professionals from engaging in ethical forms of identity exploration and clinical assessments. So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is not an ethical form of identity exploration and is not backed by evidence.

In my view counselling people to become comfortable with who they are and what they are instead of submitting to radical surgery and life long medication is extremely ethical and falls into the category of ‘first do no harm’. At first instance, helping people to explore in an ethical manner their identity might genuinely help people who have become obsessed with the idea that transitioning means the end to whatever is mentally tormenting them. It’s much better that a whole person, happy and comfortable with themselves, emerges from a period of counselling about gender identity, than a mutilated and unhappy person comes off of the end of the transition conveyor belt. People should be able to discuss and explore gender identity issues with a counsellor; there is a lot, maybe a person’s whole life and life chances, at stake.

But despite it being the humane and correct thing to do to help people come to terms with who they are and maybe divert them from a transition course that may be wrong for the individual, it’s now more than obvious that there are those in the trans movement that do not wish for individuals to be given this opportunity. The trans activists seem to be reluctant to allow people a chance to see if they can avoid transition and this could be because if people were better informed of what transition entails and what transition takes away, then they might choose a different life path. Maybe the trans activists do not want discussion allowed as then less people would choose the transition path or key aspects of the gender identity cult’s ideology will end up being challenged?

Mr Eden’s article continued:

Nick Zweigenbaum, who was involved in organising the rally in Hereford said: “The ban in itself is a good thing, but doesn’t go far enough.

“Trans people deserve and need to be protected from this.

“The Prime Minister himself described it as ‘torture’ and we want to let him know that there needs to be a total ban on this practice.”

Mr Zweigenbaum appears to want a person’s individual choice to decide to be counselled away from the idea of stepping onto the transition path to be disallowed. Many reasonable people would believe that it is right and proper to outlaw the sort of violent coercive practises that have been used in the past to stop people being LGB, however that’s not what we are dealing with here. What the reality is, is that people who might end up going down a transition path that wasn’t ultimately the best path for them will be able, under the amended Conversion Therapy Bill to talk these issues over with a therapist. It’s right and proper that people suffering from gender based delusions are given space to explore and reflect on their feelings and identity.

Of course those who believe that they are trans need to be protected from violence and violent coercion, something that should apply to every Briton but those with identity issues should not be funnelled into transition when transition may not be the best long term option for the individual. I doubt very much that Mr Zweigenbaum gives a toss about the rights of individuals suffering from gender image and identity problems to make the best and least destructive decisions about their lives. Those who are trans or who believe themselves to be also need to be protected from trans activist groups, who increasingly have a one size fits all ‘solution’ to the complex problems of individual minds and that is surgery and medication. Allowing people to talk through their image, identity or delusion issues IS protecting those who believe they are trans, it’s protecting them from making a mistake that they may regret later on in life. Mr Zweigenbaum seems more interested in promoting the cult of trans, no matter what the cost to either adults or children, than in protecting those who may be confused, or who are afflicted by a social contagion to believe they are trans or who being vulnerable are liable to be unduly influenced by others.

This man is also apparently selectively quoting the Prime Minister on the subject of conversion therapy. I cannot find a direct quote that the PM said that conversion therapy is evil but I have found a quote where he says that such therapy is ‘abhorrent’ . Did the PM say that this therapy is ‘evil’ or is it the case that Mr Zweigenbaum has misheard the PM’s words? In any event the key point about the PM’s use of the word ‘abhorrent’ is that it was in the context of anti-LGB conversion therapy, not the ethical counselling of those who are distraught mentally about their gender self image or delusion issues. Even if the PM’s words have been reported accurately by Mr Zweigenbaum, which is something that is open to question, they are certainly words that have been quoted out of context. Mr Zweigenbaum is quite obviously promoting the Stonewall view of conversion therapy, which is even against those who wish to consult with a counsellor because they are distressed by their gender identity issues.

The article by Mr Eden concludes with a list of speakers who addressed this event which did not attract a significant number of people and yet another quote from Mr Zweigenbaum. The article said:

Mr Zweigenbaum said he was delighted with the response they received from the people of Hereford to their protest on Sunday.

He said: “The vast majority of the public were incredibly supportive, cheering us along our route as we marched, the occasional person even stopping to ask more information and we even received the occasional high five.”

According to this article we only have Mr Zweigenbaum’s word for his claim that this was a demo that was well supported by the ordinary ‘Man on the Clapham Ledbury Omnibus’. I’ve heard different. I’ve heard that afterwards about a dozen maybe more trans activists marched up and down across a bridge and that it didn’t gain masses of support from ordinary people and was in fact a bit of a shambles.

The article concluded with a quote from Mr Zweigenbaum: “There is no ban without a total ban. We cannot as a society or community accept anybody being left behind in this.”

What does Mr Zweigenbaum mean by ‘everybody’? What about those who are genuinely disturbed by unwanted gender identity feelings, for whom the current fad of social, medical and surgical ‘affirmation’ into their chosen gender identity would not be the best for them? Mr Zweigenbaum appears to believe that it’s his way, the way of affirmation and blind and mindless acceptance of everyone’s gender or bodily delusion, or the highway. That doesn’t strike me as an attitude that sits well with claims of being in favour of the rights of the individual.

The more I read Mr Eden’s newspaper piece the more that it looks as if it was mainly put together from the press releases put out by Mr Zweigenbaum and his friends. There appears little if any attempt by the journalist to put the opposite side to the argument about gender ideology. Now of course as someone who understands what it is like in busy, understaffed and less than adequately resourced newsrooms, I’m not going to heap too much criticism on Mr Eden’s journalistic abilities as using a press release to base a story around is occasionally a legitimate way of doing journalism. However, to give the promoters of a controversial position, the banning of counselling to allow people to become comfortable with themselves, an unchallenged platform looks to me a classic example of how not to do local journalism. I’d like to say at this point that there doesn’t seem to be anything untoward about Mr Eden, he’s a competent local newspaper journalist, I’ve examined his work Twitter feed going back to January and there’s no sign that Mr Eden is one of those social justice activists masquerading as reporters. His work is solid local journalism with no extreme ideological bias. But on this occasion, by basing a story on the press release from an activist group and not doing any or much additional digging, Mr Eden may have missed a much bigger story.

Maybe if Mr Eden had dug a little deeper into the the background of local LGBT groups and the organisers of this demo then he might have discovered that it was run by someone who according to my research is one of the more extreme elements of the, already quite extremist local trans activists. He’s also been in the Hereford Times before, in 2019, campaigning for extended public toilet hours of all things. Mr Zweigenbaum also has his own drag type act and club and has been very successful in ingratiating himself with local worthies who want to virtue signal.

Although Mr Zweigenbaum takes the extreme view that people struggling with gender identity issues or delusions should not be able to access appropriate counselling that may lead them away from transition, or to reject the ideology of trans, that doesn’t mean that he’s any more extreme than some of the members of other local LBGT activists and their groups.

Local groups that should be catering for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and those who identify as trans, are almost completely controlled by trans activists with trans issues very much prioritised. In one case I’ve uncovered a local minority sexuality group has become almost entirely subservient to the trans issue and trans demands. Key figures in one group include those who appear to be in favour of the transition of minors, which is something that should ring alarm bells for anyone concerned about child safeguarding as well as by journalists. This organisation also contains a number of elements who are attempting to smear the LGB Alliance, because it is an organisation catering solely for those who are either same or both sex attracted and has dropped the ‘T’ in order to better serve those whose identity is primarily based on sexual orientation.

Some of these elements are allegedly trying to put people off finding out about the LGB Alliance by falsely claiming that the Alliance is a transphobic hate group. The LGB Alliance are not of course ‘transphobic’ or a ‘hate group’, these are just ‘snarl words’ used in a similar way to how a leftist uses the word ‘fascist’ to describe anything they do not like or approve of. The claim that trans activists in the Herefordshire area are attempting to smear the LGB Alliance would be, if correct, just another in a long line of examples of how trans activists and trans activist groups have become censorious and extremely hostile to viewpoint diversity within the LGBT communities.

The big local story that has been missed here is about the total takeover by trans rights activists and trans ideology of LGBT groups in the Herefordshire area. This takeover and by extension the de facto and possible deliberate exclusion by these groups of LGB people who may disagree with the gender identity cult or believe that natal sex matters, means that groups that say they are LGBT are primarily interested in the ‘T’ and say ‘sod you’ to everyone else.

If this was a private spat between minority groups in private organisations then maybe what has happened with the takeover of this county’s LGBT organisations by trans interests, would not be a matter of public concern needing reporting. However, as I have come to understand from my own researches and from digging around, these groups have extremely good relations and possible influence with the police, local authority, social services, charity organisations and the local ceremonial establishment, then it is different, it becomes a matter for justifiable public concern. We should be concerned when a tiny number of gender extremists, wedded to ideologies that are coming under increasing question from reasonable people both LGB and straight, women and men, give the impression that they can pull the state’s strings and get what looks too much like unquestioning propaganda published in local media.

To conclude, the story here was not merely about a self indulgent march by trans activists. The main scandal and indeed the main story is how much influence these trans authoritarians have gained in groups that are now LGBT in name only? What bothers me about this story is this. If a tiny minority of extreme trans activists can have so much influence on one small City and one county then is the situation similarly bad elsewhere? Do other areas of the country that have LGBT groups also have the situation where these groups are dominated by trans activists and the trans issue at the exclusion of all else? If that is the case then nationally we have a problem. The problem being that relatively tiny numbers of gender identity extremists can wield undue and unjust influence over everything from policing to education, social services and healthcare, even if that influence is detrimental to women, children, men or those who are or who are not LGB.

The ‘understory’ behind the one published in the paper, the story about trans ideologists controlling LGBT organisations and building links with and maybe having undue influence over the local administrative, ceremonial, cultural and policing establishment, is for me much more interesting than the surface story about a bunch of trans extremists cavorting through Hereford. I hope that next time a journalist on a local paper gets a story like this in their inbox then rather than just spike it and walk away, or publish it uncritically and with very little challenge, that they do something a bit different. They should dig into the history and personalities behind their local LGBT organisations. If they do, then I would be very surprised if they didn’t find some far more interesting and challenging stories than they might have expected.