The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 378. Posie Parker: Anti-Trans Activist or Women's Rights Champion? | Kellie-Jay Keen

Episode Date: August 3, 2023

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Kellie-Jay Keen, AKA Posie Parker, discuss her rude awakening as a women’s rights activist, the irony of arguing for women’s rights against transgender “women,” the censorship now abundant across leading streaming platforms, and why those speaking out continue to do so against all odds. Kellie-Jay Keen is a women’s rights activist and founder of the group “Standing For Women.” Her group events, #LetWomenSpeak, became so popular in the UK that Keen launched a world tour which has greatly influenced international discourse on the transgender movement and the importance of preserving women's spaces and affordances.    - Links - For Kellie-Jay Keen: X/Twitter  @theposieparker https://twitter.com/ThePosieParker On Youtube https://www.youtube.com/@KellieJayKeenStanding For Women (Website) www.standingforwomen.com Adult Human Female (Website) www.adulthumanfemale.us Adult Human Female (Store) www.adulthumanfemale.store

Hello everyone watching and listening. Today I have the privilege of speaking with women's rights activist Kelly J. Keane, also known as Posey Parker, we discuss the co-opting and invading of women's spaces, the hatred, jealousy, and attraction toward what women naturally possess, which underlies the transgender movement, the rise of false compassion as a means to censor and control, what Posey Parker aims to accomplish with her let women speak events, and how social pressure ideologically captured police and terrorizing mobs have not and will not silence her. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today, Kelly J.

Tell me about the name Parker Posey first. So when I was expecting one of my babies, that was, they were two names on a list, Posey and Parker. And so when I joined an online forum, I just used those as a anonymous name, and it stuck. But I go with my real name these days. I see. Okay. And so, do you want to, maybe you could let everybody who's watching, listening, know a little bit about you. And I don't know much about you. I've read your Wikipedia page and done some background research as well. You sound like quite the monster when you read your Wikipedia page, but it's a Wikipedia page. So, you know, that has to be taken with the requisite green of salt,

and we can go through that. I mean, it's quite interesting, for example, that you're described as an anti-transgender rights activist. That's pretty convenient for the people who don't like what you're saying, right? That you're an anti-transgender rights activist. The left, you got to give the leftist radicals a certain amount of credit for being able to warp language like nobody's business. But who are you? And why are you doing what you're doing?

So I am a mother of four and a happily married woman, a woman with my husband for 25 years. And then in 2015, this issue came along. I was a full-on Labour voting lefty and I joined an online forum of women and then loads of men started populating it and unlike the women who actually were completely ineffective in their campaigning, unlike the men, Women weren't talking about themselves, what they looked like, they weren't posting photos, but these men did. And they were really masculine looking men with wigs

and sort of 1980's secretary looks. And I just asked one of them one day, I do really identify as a woman. And the vitriol from him was bad enough, but from other women was just a standing. And I just thought, well, I'm not allowed to talk about this. So I want to talk about this. And I'm not having anybody telling me that I can't talk about something so significant.

And then I just started 2018. I put a billboard up with a dictionary definition of the word woman. And that really sort of solidified my place in this movement. Yeah, the billboard, that was adult human female. Yeah. Hateful. Yeah, well, that's pretty, yeah. Yeah, okay.

So you said a couple of things there that I found interesting, so that the first was that you asked one of these men who was in this woman's forum, whether or not he identified as a woman, and received a lot of hate and vitriol in response. So, well, first question is, do you feel that you crafted your question in a manner that might have invited that sort of response or what other explanation do you have for it? And then the second thing you said, which I think is equally relevant, is that not only did you receive a lot of vitriol from the person to whom you directed the question, but

you received excess vitriol from women. And so, first of all, let's inquire into the question that you posed to see if there is anything provocative about it. And second, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you have experienced the fact that women are very likely to jump on this particular bandwagon, for example, and provide noisy and self-righteous support for the people that you are hypothetically pillory. So let's start with the question. Like, do you feel that you asked a fair question of this particular man? I actually don't think I asked a question, and that's because my knowledge in 2023 means

I think it probably wasn't provocative enough. I think I should have basically not asked the question, do you identify, but just told him that he wasn't a woman, and it was insulting to pretend to be one. So yeah, it was the wrong question, but I've learned a lot since then. As for women, I think I'm supposed to say as a women's rights campaigner that women are oppressed under the patriarchy and therefore they're just trying to struggle to get their place at the table. And I don't think it's that.

I think it's currency. And I think the reason women compete in who can be the quickest to give women's rights away is because then they have currency of being these really nice people. And I think women are often used psychological warfare and ostracizing and niceness, shall we say, as a strategy to win against other women. So that's why I think women do that. So well, two things about that. So, there is a pattern of anti-social behavior among women that's been well documented in the relevant psychiatric research.

So anti-social men tend to use, to devolve towards physical violence, but anti-social women use goss of malicious slander, and reputation, savagery. And so that's been documented for decades, and that's the female pattern of anti-social behavior. But you tied it into something, you tied it into currency. And so I want to tell you a little story.

So I interviewed this very deep religious thinker. His name is Matthew Pazzo, and he wrote a book called, but is it the sacred, or I'll remember it momentarily. It's about Genesis. And I talked to him about the sin of Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden. And it's a sin of pride, right? It leads to the fall. And the sin of pride, right? It leads to the fall. And the sin of pride is that Eve proclaims that it's something like she can even clasp

the serpent to her breast, the poisonous serpent. So imagine that it is the case that women are caregivers and especially caregivers of infants and that their ability to provide care is one of their true strengths, but it's also a potential source of status. And so a woman who wants to make a false and prideful status claim can claim that her maternal embrace is so all encompassing that even the serpents can be included.

Right now, the next thing, of course, that happens is Adam Harkens to her claim. And I think what happens there is that men will enable women by telling them that their desire to embrace even the poisonous is laudable and that the social structure, which is what Adams responsible for say in the Genesis story, the social structure can be modified to accommodate to their wish. Of course, that precipitates the fall, all of that. So you said, the reason I brought this up

is because you said your conclusion has been that the women who are defending the indefensible, which would be, let's say, the male claim that femininity, femalehood is merely subjective identification, that women are claiming to support that because they want to obtain currency. Okay, so why have you become convinced of that and what exactly do you mean by that? I just think it becomes, I guess, status is part of it, but I think everybody does something for self-serving reasons. And I think by a process of elimination, I can't think, I just can't think why else a woman would do it. And I've thought about it a lot. I've already tried to think, like, what is in it

for someone who says, yeah, your 16 year old daughter can share a space with a man getting addressed. You know, how else could it be justified besides some sort of self-serving motive? And I think it just comes to currency that they can, they can maybe pretend that they don't have these feelings which may just be heaps of cognitive dissonance, but I just don't buy it.

I think it's dishonest. I don't buy it that somebody who's experienced any female-only space where men have entered, and most of us women have, and what happens in those moments is we breathe quietly. We wait until the threat is gone and we understand it. Before I can rationalize it, I understand it as a threat. And I just don't buy that other women don't do that. So they must have self-serving motives. You said when we first started our discussion that, you know, several years ago, within

this span of a decade, you were a card-carrying member of the Labor Party and that your political ideology was tilting towards the left. And I suppose the classic leftist rejoinder to what you just said was that no, you've just developed an unreasonable prejudice on behalf of that's directed towards the poor, oppressed, marginalized, trans men, let's say, the men who are claiming to be women. And that all that happened to you was that you reached the limits of your tolerance and that your genuine prejudice was revealed and that you're rationalizing the emergence of that prejudice by gaslighting the women who are generally compassionate about the marginalized.

And the reason I'm formulating the question like this is because you you were or are I don't know which On the left politically and the left historically has been At least in principle campaigning for the rights and the inclusion of the dispossessed and so Look Kelly. I've gone to to Washington several times and talked to Democrats in the House and in the Senate and I did the same with Robert Kennedy a lot when I interviewed him recently and I always ask the Quatt the Democrats that I meet the same question and that is when does the left go too far and?

I've never received an answer to that question And I've never received an answer to that question. No, and they ask me at reverse, and I always say, well, I think they go too far when they push for equity, because that's equality of outcome, and that's complete bloody disaster. And their response uniformly is, no, no, no, they just mean equality of opportunity, which they most decidedly don't. But you are or are on the left, and maybe we can delve into that a little bit. But for some reason, you appear to be proclaiming

and do believe that there's something false about the compassion that's being manifested, at least in this particular case. How do you square that with your original leftist presuppositions? And how do you distinguish genuine compassion for the marginalized and oppressed from whatever it is that you're objecting to now? Well, I think I had a journey, shall we say, in this X-Factor world in which we live. Where I realized that I was being lied to about this.

And then I realized that what, and dependent, was a total hatred and dismissive attitudes towards women and our fears and the reality of our lives. And wider and potentially more important, but for me, I'm a women's rights campaigner, but also a disregard of the truth in favor of a point of view, and ideologies, some sort of power that's handed over to these people.

So it was at that moment that I then have to really question because I'd be a fool if not to. Why else do I believe the things I believe, and are they true? Do they really exist? And the answer I came up with was categorically, no, they're not. Is it true that the left is less misogynist than the right?

Absolutely categorically not. The trade union movements, when you look at those in the UK, they don't really care about women's workers' rights. And I don't mean gender pay gap or any ethereal kind of concepts that we can discuss in 2023 whether we agree with them or not and I think you and I are probably closer to agreeing on that it doesn't really exist. But yeah it just it just made me think were the left always like this and I was just stupid and naive or have they really dramatically changed and I haven't answered that question fully because maybe And I haven't answered that question

fully because maybe I just don't admit that I've been stupid most of my life. But no, I can't possibly, I don't think women right now with this ideology and nobody really standing up for us, I don't think we can place our flag in any political camp. Well, you know, I worked for a leftist political party when I was a kid. That was a long time ago. From the time I was 14 to the time I was 17. And the I got to know the wife of the leader of the socialist party in my home province of Alberta. And I liked her a lot. She was a librarian from our local junior high school, and me and all the other delinquents used to go out during recess and lunch hour and go hang out in the library and bother

Mrs. Noughtley. We did that partly because she treated us like adults, and I did it partly because she used to give me things to read, and she gave me a lot of great books to read, and she was the first person who really introduced me to serious literature. And I got to know her and her husband, So that kind of gave me privileged access to the stratosphere of the labor party, the socialist party, the NDP in Canada. And I met a lot of the leaders. And this was back in 1977, about, about, uh, 77, so a long time ago. And, uh, you know, I found a lot of them admirable. I thought they were, they were often labor leader And, you know, I found a lot of them admirable.

I thought they were, they were often labor leader types, you know, union types, and they had done a fair bit to give the working class in Canada a voice. And they emerged out of farmers' cooperatives in Saskatchewan, and so that seemed to be like a genuine political movement and a genuine voice for those who were shot out of the political process. The conservative party at that time was clearly the party of big business and sort of unashamedly so. And the liberal party was in the middle, but the NDP, they had admirable people in them. But I watched the activists back then, and they really bothered me. I thought they were resentful and bitter and whiny and narcissistic. And that was eventually why I stopped working with the NDP.

And that was in 1979, I guess. So I would say, I don't think the left has always been like this. You know, I think that the working class needed a political voice, and I think that's still true. Now, whether they can find it on the left or not, now I don't think they can. But I don't think that you were merely blind your entire life and that the left has always been pathological. But I do think that compassion is the best camouflage for narcissistic serpents. And so if the left proclaims itself as the party of the oppressed, then it opens up the door to being invaded by those who will use claims of compassion to put forward their

narcissistic, what would you clamoring and groping for power. And one of the problems with being on the left is that it's very hard for liberal types to draw boundaries. And so you risk being invaded by the real predators. And I really think in some ways that's what's happened to the left is that the narcissists have invaded and they now dominate. And this is an age-old story, right? This is a danger to... This has been a danger to organizations since the dawn of time. And it's certainly happening now. So I don't think it was a complete existential catastrophe,

you know, what you believed. But I do think that that inability to draw distinctions on the left is potentially fatal. So how do you conceptualize yourself? Now I think I pointed out that if you read your Wikipedia page, then what you are apparently is an anti-transgender rights activist. That sounds like a pretty damn reprehensible sort of person because I mean, here's these poor marginalized transgender, uh, man, let's say, who are just trying to struggle forward, you know, what would you say bravely as President Biden would say, and

the world held bent on their oppression and genocide. And there you are, you know, opposing their rights. And so what's your, this is a horrible thing to ask, but what's your self definition? Oh, I struggle with it on a daily basis. It's so fluid. I'm just an adult human female. I'm a mother. I'm a wife. I'm a subject of the United Kingdom.

I'm just a person. But it's just so, I'm just a person, but it's just so, I'm just not having it that these men are vulnerable. Like if you feel vulnerable and you don't wanna be, and you genuinely feel that the world hates you so very much, I don't know why you put on women's clothes to leave the house.

I mean, it's just, I'm just not having such a nonsensical silly ideology taking over what my spaces look like and the spaces of my daughter. So I call myself a women's rights activist because I believe that women's language, I mean, so much goes back to that word woman and what it means and who can use it. And we are navigating what sex means in the equality act, which is just fundamentally, just ridiculous. We know what sex means. And now we're having to reclareify what it means in law in our right act so that women

can have spaces. And for me, the equality act is an nonsense anyway. I'll digress slightly on this. But for me, the equality act just doesn't make any sense, because surely a proportionate reason, and that's one of the things you need to justify a woman only space or a woman only group, is proportionate means.

Well, if I say I just want women in my groups, then that's proportionate. If I said I just wanted women on my board of a company, maybe not so, but if I say that I just want a social group that's women only for women, I don't know why I need to justify keeping a man out who says he's a woman. And then it goes back to the GRA and I'm sure

we'll get onto that. But I fundamentally think having a legal fiction in this country is preposterous and has led to all of the fall-out we now see. If we were tolerant, we just let these men do what they like, call themselves whatever they like, stay out of women's spaces and just all get on with our days. But we don't, we have to pretend that they are actually women and I'm not doing it. So there's a lot of issues that you just brought up there. Yes, so the, the, well, I would like, I would like, if you would, to explain for those who are watching and listening a little bit more about the Equality Act. And then maybe we can turn to this issue of, I think it's a hatred and jealousy of women.

It's a hatred, jealousy, and attraction to what women hypothetically have. That's part of the, what would you say, nexus of psychopathology that's driving this desire to tread on the grounds of women's rights to appropriate the domain of femininity. So this is cultural appropriation in its most fundamental sense. I'd like to delve into that a little bit because I watch Dylan Mulvaney very carefully. And Dylan Mulvaney makes quite an effective comedian. He's good at parodying women in the same way in a manner that's akin to what the Monty Python folks used to do, although because they were very masculine looking men, they had to parody, they made themselves into

particularly hideous middle-aged women and parodied them. And they were very funny about it. And Dylan Mulvaney is actually quite funny except that he doesn't know when to stop telling the joke. You know, and there is this element of parody and his behavior that's absolutely paramount when I first saw him, I thought, there is absolutely no way this guy is serious. He's trolling everyone. This is just a very elaborate joke. And I thought maybe it had a touch of genius in it because it was an incredibly elaborate joke. But,

you know, he, he's taken the joke a little too far and it, it seems to me to be quite clear that he will shred his connection with reality to elevate himself narcissistically in the public eye. And, and that means that he's gone too far. And the people who enable him, who are these, what would you say, narcissists of compassion on the left are doing him absolutely no favors. Because I can't see a good end for Dylan Mulvaney.

I can't see how you can go where he's gone and continue. Anyways, let's start with the Equality Act. Will you bring everybody watching and listening up to speed about that? So there are different characteristics, might be disability, religion, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, sexual orientation, gender assignment.

So when that started, that used to be, oh, sorry, gender reassignment. So that would, that used to be transsexuals and what they did as they made it so vague and opaque that they could revise what gender reassignment actually meant. So you could be protected. To what extent, I'm not actually sure, but you can't be discriminated against for having gender reassignment. Well, I think there are, there are points at which it would be inappropriate, for example, we do have Brafittas in the UK who now have got jobs, so men who don't have much surgery,

who call themselves women now are Brafittas in large shops. So, it's a new skeptical of that, I take it. There's no, well, look, I'm a prude British, so there's very few chances I would take to go and get a bra fitting anyway, but certainly if it was a man, a person I would call a man, an actual man, then I wouldn't do it. And also, I've got a teenage daughter, you go for a first bra fittingother fitting. It's incredibly embarrassing. And to hear a male voice in that space would be horrendous, because as we know, girls, when they develop through puberty,

it's the most embarrassing time and also the time when they most need to fit in with their peers. And so those two things are really hideous anyway. But anyway, I digress. So the Equality Act is a balance of different rights based upon different characteristics. And at the moment in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, there was a debate on whether or not the equality act, when it talks about sex, even though we've got gender reassignment in the equality act, now sex is supposed to, according to people mainly on the left,

include men who call themselves women, which then makes the whole thing pretty damn laughable, if sex in our law, in our legal system, actually means someone who says they're a particular sex as opposed to someone who is a particular sex. And I just think this is where we are. We have a gender recognition act, which means that you can change your gender, but there is no such thing as gender throughout most of our laws,

that actually has any definition. And it's the same in the States, I should imagine, it's the same in Canada where they flooded all of our laws that actually are reliant on biological sex. They flooded with the word gender, so therefore it becomes mixed up, and then you can pretend all along you just meant people who identify as one sex or another. So, you know, for me, the equality act is a little dated now, and I think very confusing

anyway, and I think we need to rip it up and start all over again. Okay, so on the on the bra fitting question, let's say. So why isn't the proper response to your concerns? Well, it's the modern age. We've already dispensed almost altogether with men only spaces. It's now time to do the same to female only spaces and maybe the right attitude for you and your daughter is to just get over your prudishness

and to accept the fact that people who want to do something including bra fitting can do it regardless of their sex or their gender. So why would you appear to reject that proposition? And why do you think that so two questions? I guess why do you think it's appropriate for you to reject that claim? And for you and on behalf of your daughter, let's say. And then there's a thornier question underneath that, which is, well,

under what conditions is discrimination, which, by the way, used to mean judgment, as well as any number of other things, what are the situations under which discrimination actually becomes not only appropriate, but, say, ethically mandated. This is a conversation we have in our culture for, and I would say this is the fault of the left, although the right wingers have enabled it by being so hapless. We haven't had a discussion about what constitutes appropriate discrimination for, you know, since like 1964. It's a very long time. So first of all, why do you think you're justified in your phobia? There we go. In your phobia about going to have a bra fitting with a man who claims to be a woman.

Well, I think if society had moved on to a point where women and men were uncomfortable naked around each other, if there was no sexual assault, if there was no sexual assault, which is viarism and indecent exposure, which is an opportunist crime, and we know that most of the people that would do that would be men, and most of the victims will be women and children. So I think in that regard, if that had changed and that no longer existed, then maybe I would be open to listening.

But we know that men and women don't particularly like to be undressed in front of each other. And if you're in the UK, that includes everybody, whatever sex they are, we're relatively prudish, I'm quite happy to be so. But I just think we're we have naked bodies and we have boundaries around those sort of naked bodies and in situations where women feel more uncomfortable and in a state of undress and and I know that boys feel like that too

around the opposite sex at certain stages of their lives, if not all of their lives. And so I think it's sex at certain stages of their lives, if not all of their lives. And so I think that's why I mean, we sort of joke about this question and but we both know that that question is asked. It's a it's a GNU when sort of question from the left when you or from trans activists, when you speak about this. And my first question used to be, does my 11 year old daughter have the right to be in a female only space and not see an adult penis? And I would ask that in female only labour women groups online. And I was told, no, she's transphobic, you're raising a big it, why is your daughter staring at genitals? Is she a pervert? And so I think at that point you realize it's a quasi religious cult. And it's dogmatic,

and it doesn't make any sense, and it's indefensible because they don't have arguments, they have mantras. Well, and that's also a good place to observe as well, that that issue of currency that you just described also rears its hideous head at that point. It's like it's a competition between the women that you're talking about to see who converts you single, the loudest about their loving kindness and tolerance. And that becomes monstrous and devouring when taken beyond a certain point. That's certainly what Freud observed, for example, when he wrote extensively about the Edible Complex. Because what we're seeing in the culture right

now is the Edible Complex gone mad on a scale that would, I'm sure, is making Freud rotate in his coffin at about 150, you know, 150 spins per second. No one could have possibly envisioned that this that this onslaught of tyrannical compassion would devour the whole culture. You know, it's what would you say? The onset of a new kind of totalitarianism that's predicated in a say, the onset of a new kind of totalitarianism that's predicated in an anti-social, feminine ethos. So, here's some things that you might find interesting. So, of course, girls hit puberty earlier than boys.

And it's in some ways more dramatic. And I would say it's more dramatic because women are clearly more vulnerable on the sexual front. And the reason they're more vulnerable is manifold. First of all, they're physically smaller. And so that's a problem. And second, smaller and weaker, especially in the upper body. So they're not that good at fending off full-scale physical assaults,

let's say, from a large man. And second, they're sexually vulnerable because a sexual mishap for a woman can result in pregnancy, obviously, and the dangers that are associated with that. And social shame that's associated with inadvertent pregnancy. And then that lengthy period of dependence that's associated with the child.

And those are all real costs. And so what happens biologically to girls is that when they hit puberty, two things happen. Their levels of negative emotion increase, because there are no difference between negative emotion, baseline negative emotion for boys and girls. But at puberty, the negative emotion of women increases, and it never returns to what would you say, parody with mep. It's raised up, and it's permanently raised up. This is why women are four to five times more likely,

something like that, to suffer from negative emotion-related disorders, including anxiety and depression. And the reason for that, I think, is because if you are vulnerable on the sexual front, which is the case for women, then you should be more sensitive to threat because the world's more dangerous. And now the other thing that happens, so women's anxiety and negative motion

also tends to take the form of bodily self-consciousness. And that's more true for women than for men. And I think it's because the body, that's when we're thinking about it, is the locus of vulnerability for women for the reasons that we just outlined. And it's also because women are evaluated in terms of their status more harshly on the basis of their physical appearance than men are. A men are evaluated more harshly on the basis of their, let's say, socioeconomic status, like way more harshly.

But so there's some equivalence of harshness, let's say, across the sexist, but it's differentiated. And so your daughter has every reason to be leery and wary in any situation that she might be exploited. And the reason for that is, well, she might be exploited. And it's not trivial. I mean, I don't think there's any less trivial form of exploitation than exploitation on the sexual front, especially for women. Is it is rape worse than death? Well, it's arguably worse. No, and it's not taken with requisite seriousness. And so I think you have every

lay you and your daughter have every leg to stand on when you say, well, it isn't obvious to me that it's compassion allowing these unbelievably narcissistic and self-centered men into women's spaces. It's like, what the hell are they doing? If a man wants to turn himself into a woman and then just ride off into the sunset and not bother anyone for the rest of his life, it's like, you know, go to hell in the hand basket, your own way there, buddy. But when you start proclaiming that you should have access to, let's say, barely, pubescent girls and to hell with their feelings because you're all that matters, I think you've gone a little bit too far down the narcissistic path myself. Yeah. Well, we've always had terrible people, right?

People have always existed that want to do bad things and want to impose themselves on others. We just now have a state sanctioned, like, narcissists charter, where it means that those men can go into women's spaces and celebrated for doing so, because they're so stunning and brave for getting addressed in front of teenage girls. It's like it's, if it wasn't so serious, it would be amusing that it just doesn't

make sense and coherent adults, like sensible, intelligent adults with sensible jobs will actually talk like this, we'll say that that's what's the harm of a member. You mean like the president of the United States, I presume you've been watching what happened in the last week, which again falls under that heading of if it wasn't true and dangerous, it would be so funny that it's unbearable category. And so the White House invited this, you know, absolutely narcissistic exhibitionist trans.

I never know, trans man, trans woman. I can never get the damn terminology right. A man who's deluded himself into believing that he's a woman and who's insisting that everyone else participate in his lie. How about that? And what did he do? He stood up on the White House lawn with one of his idiot friends who had had a double mastectomy, and she showed off the remnants of her chest proudly,

and he showed off his silicon breasts. And that was pretty damn comical, given that it was the White House. But what was even more comical was the White House response, because Biden had proclaimed the very same day that there's almost nothing braver than a trans man, which is really quite the bloody claim, and then claimed retrospectively to be shocked and appalled by the fact that the people celebrated for doing exactly the things they did on the White House law and actually came out and did them.

And so yeah, it's an evil parody, you know? And I think there is an evil parody element to totalitarianism that needs to be called out and noted because everybody in a totalitarian system is an evil clown playing this demented game that's a parody of real life. And there is an element of unbelievably black humor in it. And I see that in the behavior of people like Dylan Mulvaney, right? Because he's obviously parodying women. And I think he does it because he's insanely jealous of what he thinks they have, right? It's the unearned privilege of being a woman is to be elevated onto a kind of pedestal

and to what, to have the world at your feet because of what your beauty, because that seems to be what he's chasing. And all the rights and privileges you accrue mean merely because you're feminine. And so it's the deluded vision of resentful men who think that those of the opposite sex have an elevated position in creation, right? Have all the rights and none of the responsibilities, have all the beauty and none of the ugliness, and they're jealous of that and they can't have it, and as a consequence of that, I think they hate women. Yeah. Oh, I definitely think they hate women. I wonder whether or not this is not just a vehicle for narcissism, as opposed to, I wonder if the rest of it is a bit of a side show for him being feminine, being jealous of women. He said some pretty dreadful things, but I wonder if he

just hated women always. And this just happens to go inside. But I think he's driven by extreme narcissism and wanting to be famous, probably more than he's driven by wanting to be a woman, which I don't actually think he does. I think he does. Yeah, I think, I think, well, I think that's right, although I also think watching him, like he is very feminine in his mannerisms. And this is where the distinction between sex and gender becomes complex, right? Because I don't believe that there's any such thing as gender. I think, I think, I think the people who came up with the notion of gender to call them appallingly underqualified and incoherent academics is to say almost nothing about how unqualified and incoherent they are. However, people do vary temperamentally, and there is a relatively large proportion of men, let's say,

who have temperaments that, on average, are more like female temperaments than male temperaments. And the reverse is also true because there's wide temperamental variability among human beings. And so there are lots of feminine men and masculine women. Now that doesn't mean they're born in the wrong damn body. It just means that the range of temperament within the sexes is actually quite broad. And I think Dylan is a relatively feminine in his temperament. And I think that probably is confusing for him, especially because he's also very high in openness, which is creativity dimension, right? I mean, he's been an actor forever and he still is one

and actors and creative people do have relatively fluid identities because being creative and having a fluid identity are the same thing. Now, if you combine that with his narcissism, which is that desire for fame, that untrammeled and what would you call it? It's viciously unadventional desire for fame. You do get the kind of behavior that he's manifesting,

which is like, it looks like he'll sacrifice himself on the altar of his own fame. But that's also not that uncommon. It's certainly what school shooters do, for example, right, they'll commit suicide to get a front page headline. And you know, that's deeply rooted in the motivational structure of men because, of course, men are judged on the basis of their social status. And so they're highly motivated to attain that status, you know, by fair means or foul

come hell or high water. Now, I just wanted to make a comment about femininity because I find it really interesting when men accused, if you like, of being feminine, because I think so-called effeminate men take up a lot of space, a lot of public space, and I don't mean like man's breading. I mean, like literally, volumwise, what they're willing to do, how they enter a room. It doesn't strike me as particularly feminine if we look at stereotypical feminine, which is make yourself small, stay quiet, be submissive.

I don't think flamboyant effeminate men are remotely feminine. I don't know what else to call it, certainly not masculine, but it is, it just doesn't seem to for me neatly fit into what is feminine. But yeah. Yeah, well I think maybe there's that's a good, that's a good, distinction. Well, I think archetyply there's sort of two classes of feminine, right?

You could think about it as the virgin and the horror. And so, and there's an uneasy tension between those two, obviously. And the kind of feminine behavior that you're claiming to be not feminine is more on the horror side of things, and it's histrionic and demonstrative. And, you know, you can see elements of it, you know, you can see elements of that in the You can see elements of it. You can see elements of that in the icons that gay men, for example, choose to idolize on the feminine side. They would be people like Marilyn Monroe, for example, who's an icon among the gay community.

That's because her femininity is, I don't want to be unfair to Marilyn Monroe, because that's not my point, but her persona was very glamorous and demonstrative. When that gets pathologized, the psychiatric community, the psychological community describes that as histrionic, and it's certainly the case that the behavior, and that's from hysteria, by the way, which meant wandering womb and wandering uterus to begin with. And back in the dark Victorian times, sometimes histrionic women were cured by, by a hysterectomy, which cured their hysteria. Right? So that's all interestingly and bizarrely intertwined. But the femininity that the men that you're describing, flaunt, isn't the reserved chased end of the femininity distribution. It's the more

histrionic, demonstrative attention seeking, femme fatale end of the distribution. Like your typical trans man, like Dylan, dresses up like a movie star, not like, you know, not like a nun, unless he's parodying nuns. Yes, he does, yeah, you're right. So let's talk about what happened to you in your public speeches. So what are you, what is it that you're a comp, what are you trying to accomplish

with your public communications? And let's, would you tell a few stories about what's happened to you? So, for example, what happened to you in New Zealand became worldwide news. If you'd like, we could start with that or maybe you could, maybe you could trace the development of your public speaking. Said, this must have all come as somewhat of a shock to you and produced a lot of changes in your life. Maybe we'll do it that way. When did you start speaking publicly?

So, after the billboard got taken down, I was sort of my banning from this public square, the modern public square, I Twitter, Facebook, etc. That began. So, I was banned from Twitter for nearly five years. So my voice in the public square just disappeared. I'm not even allowed to sign a petition on change.org. Like I'm so banned. People won't make things for me anyway.

So I was banned from everywhere. So I was like, well, let's go back to the actual public square and make real-life connections with people. And so I started doing that in about 2019. And we started doing speeches at Speakers Corner and invited women to come and speak. And then women all over the country couldn't get to those events. I also did one in lockdown.

So we did a speech. We went to Leeds, which isn't the north of England during lockdown, but because we weren't marching about Black Lives Matter, we could catch COVID. went to Leeds, which isn't the north of England during lockdown, but because we weren't marching about Black Lives Matter, we could catch COVID. So we all got arrested for trying to speak in the public. And then I was at a cell that was covered in sort of body fluids. So I think I was more at risk of catching COVID in that cell, but I got arrested live on my livestream. But it's just about, it's twofold, or maybe more than that. There's one, it means that women get to speak in public

about their fears for their children, for the education system, for the state, specifically to do with this quasi-religious cult of transgenderism. So that'll be one element of it. So free speech is a really important part of that. Enabling women to come along who don't have to buy a ticket to watch a few special women on a platform and a panel speak about their lives, but ordinary women speaking

about their lives. And we live stream it, which means other women, maybe in very similar situations, will hear their story and it will resonate. And it's about waking everybody up to what the dangers are of this cult. And the other thing is that we basically through bait and perfect fishing conditions, we bring out the misogyny and we conjure, we basically play the opposition who come along and object violently and aggressively to women speaking in public.

And so then we show everybody just exactly what's going on. So you started that at Speaker's Corner and you've traveled around the world now holding these events. What countries have you gone to? Well, we did the US, so I did about 10 dates in the US. I couldn't go to Portland. You won't be surprised because they were credible death threats in Portland. So we didn't go there. We went to

San Francisco. I objected to a senator who brought in the bill SB 132, which is about men and women's rights. But that's Scott, Scott Weiner? Yes, it was. Oh, yeah, he's real fun. He's a real man, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Perfect. So, Chicago, and I made a documentary about it. And what I learned in America is you may have the right to free speech,

but you do not have the right to be heard. So, we got protested, as long as people didn't touch our faces, or touch us in front of the police, they were allowed to just be this close to our faces, banging, making noise so we couldn't be heard. So that was very interesting. And then I thought, well, I'll go to Australian New Zealand. They're relatively lovely places to visit.

And I went to Australia and I got defamed by one of the politicians who read my Wikipedia page. Didn't fact check a single word of it and put it out on the television, which they made my life very vulnerable. And I went to New Zealand and I was mobbed by the estimate, there's about sort of three to five thousand people who really did want something terrible happen to happen to me. I mean, I did. That's a lot of people in New Zealand. Yeah, it's nearly half the country I'm told. Yeah.

And so they came to protest and it was very aggressive and then I had to go into police protection until I could leave the country. And even in the police station, it was only on a knee to no basis. So even police officers didn't know I was in the police station to keep me safe. What was that like for you in New Zealand?

I mean, I watched the footage and it was quite the show. I mean, what did that do to you and why haven't you stopped? I mean, you could just go back to your life in principle. Maybe you can. Maybe you're too far into this now. So that, you know, your life will never be what it was. That's possible. But in principle, you could stop saying the things that you're saying. And you could stop exposing yourself to this pretty high level of public threat.

I mean, I've been in nasty, nasty demonstrations, and they're not exactly fun, especially when people are, you know, six inches from your face and screaming madly away. And like, I'm always afraid I'm going to do something that I would regret in a situation like that. I mean, I have security people, and part of the reason for that is so they don't let me do anything

I'll regret when someone is screaming madly six inches from my face or using an air horn, you know, to shut me down, but really so that they're sadistic, the little sadistic devil that they've allowed to dwell inside them can, what would you say, delight in the fact that they're potentially deafening someone? And that's happened multiple times. But I mean, that was a lot of people who are after you, and that was a pretty tense situation to say the least. And so what did that do to you psychologically?

And why are you continuing to speak out, let's say? I don't know, maybe I'm a social person, because it didn't actually, people say, how are you recovering? Are you okay? And in those moments, I just put one foot in front of the other. I think you do, when you're in moments like that, you focus on the things that you can control.

And for me, it was about stepping forward and not letting anybody fall over. So not letting the person in front of me when there was a bench coming up fall over the bench because I just felt that we would, we would be stomped and probably killed if we hit the floor. But I say a lot on my channel, like if not, if not you then who? And it's me. You know, in this entire movement to be rather immodest, I probably am the most known female. In this women's rights movement, not in the sort of the broader free speech movement,

but in this women's rights movement, and I am really lucky, I don't have an employer. I'm self-funded, I sell merchandise in order for me to do these things. I now need to sort of very expensive security whenever I go into a public event, because I can't be certain that I'm going to be okay. We have sort of exit strategies and plans, but yeah, just, you know, there's a bit of me that thinks, how dare they? Like, who do they think they are?

And why would I stop? Like, there's, there's, there's girls in the United States of America, age 13, having their breasts removed, probably dozens today. Like, why would I stop? It's, I'm, I'm an atheist, but I would say that if anything was going to, gonna convince me that there was a devil. It would be this.

It's just plain evil. Yeah, well, lots of people come to God through contact with the devil. That's for sure. Yeah, well, you know, the thing is, is once you have encountered malevolence, you start to understand the reality of evil. And once you start to understand the reality of evil, you're compelled by logical necessity to posit the reality of good. And God is being defined for a very long time as the pinnacle of what constitutes good. And if you start to believe in

radical evil, well, you start to have to posit that, that its opposite exists, right? And so that's an interesting, you might say that's a very interesting road to walk down. And you're trying to figure out in part, you know, what's your moral obligation under such circumstances? And you alluded to the fact that you think that somebody has to speak for people, let's say like Chloe Cole,

who was, I think she had a double mistake to me when she was 15, and the wounds never healed properly, surprise, surprise, because it's butchery and not surgery. And, but you know, you also alluded to the fact that you think in some ways that it's self-evident that people should stand up against this, because, well, look at what's right in front of you folks, but most people don't, and your pilloried quite roundly,

I mean, your Wikipedia page is actually quite a work of art, because you have to become across as quite the reprehensible creature on that page, and that's an example of exactly how your pilloried and painted by the radicals on the left. And one of the interesting issues here is, well, just exactly what it is that you're fighting. I read the other day, this is a very interesting paper.

There's about 10 papers now that are looking at the, what would you say, the nature and the psychological traits, the nature of left-wing authoritarianism and the psychological traits that are associated with it. And so some of the latest research shows very clearly that malignant narcissism, psychopathy, macchivalonism, and sadism are very, very good predictors of left-wing authoritarianism. And left-wing authoritarianism seems to be a pastiche of progressive left-wing political views, which would include the expansion of rights and this kind of compassion that perhaps

originally attracted you to the left years ago, but also the insistence that all of that can be could and should be imposed by force and through the means of compulsion. So it's the aggregate of those two things. And the people who hold those viewpoints are remarkably disproportionately likely to be sadistic, psychopathic, macchivalian narcissists. And so, you know, you might ask yourself, are you engaged in a political fight, or are you just engaged in the age-old, what would you say? Requirement of women to put the serpent under their heel. Right? You know, that's what God calls upon women to do at the end of the story, the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, right? Is to bruise the head of the serpent with your heel.

There's this great image of Mary that's a Renaissance image. It was very common Renaissance image, right? And it's an attempt to lay out the symbolic image of the divine feminine. And so what you see is Mary, who's the mother of the Savior, the eternal mother of the Savior, the mother of the hero, let's say, and she has like a crown of stars, 12 stars around her head, and that means that her head is in the stars.

And her foot is on the head of a serpent, very common motif. And what that does mean is that if you aim for the highest aim possible, you will simultaneously put your foot on the head of the serpent and that that's actually your, what would you say? That's your divine obligation as a female. You know, and women, of course, forever have protected the vulnerable

from the real serpents. You know, in our mammalian heritage, going back 60 million years, that often meant, what would you say, doing everything possible to stop your children from being eaten, right? Well, there's being eaten in the real world, concretely, as a consequence of exposure to genuine predators, reptiles and otherwise, but there's also all sorts of being eaten that your children can face on the abstract front. And so, well, these are all, what would you say? Religious ideas lurking beneath the surface of this strange political situation that we find ourselves in. So you feel a moral obligation to do this and tell me again when that started to emerge.

In 2015, when we elected a Conservative government, because I don't think many of us, because I was in the left, so I had no idea what was going on outside, and I didn't know that we were going to elect a Conservative government, and we did, and so in 2015 2015 and then, you know, I wrote a letter called grieving the left when I was in 2016 about, you know, I just couldn't tolerate being part of something. And even now women that are on the left trying to fight this from inside, they still haven't gone on that sort of discovery of what else is wrong with my assumptions. So I think about Chloe Cole and girls like her. And I think overwhelmingly the thing I think is the greatest harm is that they have themselves

to blame. Now, I don't really think they do, because their children and they can't consent and normally in situations we would say that children aren't to blame for things that happen to them like the medical mutilation of their bodies. But she must have to wrestle with that. They all must, when they come to the decision that what they've done to themselves is wrong, and they must definitely wear some of that blame. I just can't.

Well, if you're a lying therapist, let's say, and your goal as a lying therapist is to elevate your own moral standing in your own eyes, even at the cost of your clients, then you enable their darkest motivations. And so, and you do that under the guise of compassion. And so, Chloe told me when I interviewed her that when she was starting to go through puberty, she was a real admirer of the Kardashian girl with her exaggerated, hypersexualized female hourglass figure.

And I'm not critiquing that, by the way. I'm saying that Chloe had adopted that as an ideal. And she became convinced, and I don't think she's ever told anyone this, but she might have. She certainly didn't tell her, demanded the idiot lying therapists who enabled her her worst impulses. She decided and this was all part of you might say pre-pubescent fantasy that she wasn't going to make a very good woman because she realized rightly wrongly when she started to go through puberty and that happened

fairly early that she was likely to have a comparatively boyish figure. Now I mean compared to Kardashian, virtually all women have a boyish figure so you know you could say that her standard of comparison was not precisely wisely chosen but you could understand why she might have done it. And she decided that well she was never going to be a very good woman, so maybe she could do better as a boy. You know, and there's a temptation in that, right? And that bears on this issue of moral culpability.

Is she was toying with irresponsible ideas, right? They were dwelling. They were attempting to dwell within her. That's a good way of thinking about it. Now a good therapist would have listened to her so hard that he would have elicited that realm of fantasy, let's say, and then walked her through it. Because the right discussion is, well, why did you pick Kardashian as your target for femininity?

Isn't it the case that there are an immense variety of female forms of beauty like Audrey Hepburn wasn't Kardashian. No, she look, she had that gammon. I think that's what they call it. Look, which is more waif like and in some ways more boyish. And there was no reason for Chloe to assume that the only acceptable adult human female form was that exaggerated hourglass femininity characterized by Kardashian. And that should have been delved into. But to call her psychological care poor is to give far more credit to her therapists than they deserve, because not only was it poor, it was the reverse of helpful. And so she was enticed down the garden path

by her own fantasies, but still more fundamentally, she was enabled by the liars and the butchers that she ran into. Yeah, I mean, it's unfathomable. I mean, if we really, if we think about a hospital in America right now, you know, sedating somebody, getting ready for double mastectomy in their teens, it's, it's just, it's difficult to think that way I can't, I just can't, I can't leave it, like I can't stop

and tell it stops, because I've got four children, I want them to live in a world where they can speak. Like one of my sons is a university. I can't even drop him off. Nobody can know that I'm his mother. You know, it's... I don't want my kids to live in that world where they should be able to talk about everything. Even really terrible ideas, they should be able to express in public or to their friends. And they can't do that. So I just think it's, yeah, nothing would persuade me. I don't think to stop.

Because the more people try to stop me, the more I think I'm right. And I'm on the right path. And it has to be done. Mm-hmm. Yeah, well, that's a good UK tradition, you know? That's for sure. What do your kids think about you and

what you're doing? Well they're all quite lovely actually even if I do say so myself. So I have four children I have a 21 year old boy, 20 year old boy, 16 year old girl and a 14 year old boy. My 14 year old is the most likely to try and engage in the topic with his friends, which has not been very successful. My daughter said to me quite some years ago, Mummy, I think you'll be in the history book, so she's on side. They all think I'm right. I'm very lucky. I've known about this since 2015, before it was really poisoned all the way through the school. So I had a really good chance and we're quite open, you know, in my house. And I don't mean like we sit around saying, singing, come by, I mean,

that if my kids had an issue, they can come to me and talk about stuff. So yeah, okay, so you said it's partly because you're open and you're communication style, but it seems to be likely from what you've just said that they must trust you. I mean, this must have been quite troublesome for them to see all this happening around you.

And so why do you think you've been fortunate enough to continue to have that familial support? I mean, these issues sometimes break families up. So why hasn't that happened in your case? Well, I think because I'm a parent, and I've parented my children. I think there's a, you know, when a come to my meetings where their children can't be told that they're there because their children might fall out with them, and I just think,

no, I'm the role of the parent in my children's lives. I'm not their friend. They don't have to agree with me. I don't have to agree with them. It's not like they have to think everything that comes out of my mouth is right, but I am their parent. And so they trust me because throughout their lives, when I've said something, I'm telling the truth in an age-appropriate way. And so I think they understand that I don't know if I'm an authoritarian, or though I'm relatively close, I suspect, when it comes to my parenting, but you know, I'm, if I say that something is okay, that I'm going to be fine, that I'll do it, and it will be done, they've seen time and time again, that that happens. One of my children

in their school, they, they were going to have a lobby group go in and give a presentation about gender identity, so I said to myself, well, I'll go and sort this out. And I went into the school and I had a meeting with the head of PSHE. And I, she said, oh, well, we don't really know what we're teaching. So we've got this lobby group in. And I said, who?

Well, she said an education group, but they're not. They're a lobby group. They're a pro-trans lobby group. They're trying to indoctrinate children in schools. And she said, oh, it's Giles. And I said, oh, no, you won't. No. And she said, oh, any reason.

I said, no, you won't be doing that because it's harmful to children. And if you don't know what you're teaching, why would you let someone else teach it? No, that will not happen. And I think I have enough authority in my voice and it did not happen because I said it wouldn't happen. And my kids know that if I do that, it happens. I could put your mind at ease on one front, perhaps. So there are a variety of different

parenting styles and one of them is authoritarian. But the other, the opposite of that, is I don't remember the technical term, but it's basically, it's basically lax and progressive, but what it really is, is irresponsible in the guise of inclusivity and compassion. And then in the middle, there's authoritative, right? And kids with authoritative parents do better.

I'll be that one then. So, well, right, right. Well, that's not the same as authoritarian, and it's really useful to know this, especially for people on the left, because people on the left tend to think that anything authoritative is authoritarian. And that's just not true, right? And you're, well, I would say, that's partly what you've been clarifying for yourself conceptually, as you've wrestled with the, what would you say, the problematic elements of your, your previous, your previous leftist stance, right? Where do you draw the line? Authoritative people draw the line. And when you draw the line, what you mean when you draw the line is, no, you're not going to do that. And no means something like, if you continue to do that, something you do not like will happen to you with 100% what you certainty.

That's what no means. And there's a certain harshness in that. And if that's applied all the time, well, then it becomes authoritarian, obviously, because authoritarian say, note everything. But people who are judicious say, note the things that should have no said to them. And that is very, what would you say?

It's anxiety relieving for children, eh? Because children want to know where the walls are, because they want to know in what space they can play and what's there to keep the predators at bay. And so they push and push their parents and everyone around them to find out where the walls are. If you're asking, you know, why did children misbehave and test the limits is because if they find limits, then they can relax comfortably within them. People do that in the context of the romantic relationships all the time too. They provoke to see where the walls are. And if the answer is, well, there are no walls anywhere, then the upshot of that is that you're exposed

to everything in the world and you're terrified. And so the progressive parents terrify their children because there are no boundaries. And so then their children just explode in every direction, testing the limits, praying desperately to themselves that they'll find them somewhere. And the progressive types say, well, there are no limits, because all limits are nothing but authority, and their children are desperate and lost. Yeah, well, all that's not much fun.

That's for sure. So would you tell me a little bit about mermaids? Because people in North America don't know very much about that story, and you've had some entanglements without particularly lovely organization. So, I've been interviewed under caution by the British police on two occasions at the behest of mermaids. So mermaids is a charity in the UK. I would class them as a pro-transing kids lobby group who claims to protect trans kids, which I think is a, is a nonsense call thing that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a trans child, just like there's no such thing as a vegan cat.

And you have Susie Green, when her son was 12, she took him out of the country to see Dr. I think his name's Dr. Quack. It might not be but I remembered it like that. You just wanted to be. It might actually be, oh no it's back but I remembered it as Dr. Quack. I just put it in my memory bank. That's So sorry. Anyway, she took him and got puberty blockers. We didn't give them out in the country back then. And then at 16, she took him to Thailand and had his test scores removed, which I called

castrated on Twitter. Which is what it is, by the way. Yeah, although in my police interview, which I did no comment all the way through, but in the interview, the hate crime officer, which is an actual thing in the UK, the hate crime officer said, did you know sex reassignment surgery doesn't include castration? And I wasn't allowed to say anything, but I just thought, what did he think that he came home with what testicles were earrings? Like, of course, it includes castration.

But yeah, he was 16. And since then in Thailand, they don't do surgeries on children and cut their testicles off and slice them, but their penises into a never healing hole. But yeah, I got in trouble by the British police.

Twitter released my information to the police. And then I was interviewed under caution, and they were going to charge me with... What does that mean? What does it mean to be interviewed under caution? It's kind of like you have the right to remain silent, so it's recorded and only think you say and that can be used in a court against you, so... I see, I see.

You know, they said it was voluntary, but if I didn't go to the interview, they would maybe come and arrest me at my house, or if I was pulled over for a traffic offense, they would arrest me, or if I tried to leave the country, they would arrest me. I see. So it was voluntary, except for the force part. Yeah, it was voluntary, but it didn't have a spongebob. Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah, you guys are having a lot of fun in the UK with this whole hate crime officer

thing and interviewed under caution. And yeah, and I guess the Irish are running down that road pretty much as fast as they can now, putting forward the world's most reprehensible hate speech policy, which I always think that hate speech policy is inevitably derived by people who hate speech. And so that's actually why they call it that. Yes, well, precisely. And so, so what was it like for you to be, to be interviewed by the police in the UK, right? The, the, the home of liberty central, you might say for the world, because I think that's a fair description of the UK. I mean, you people broadly speaking brought liberty to the world. That's not a bad way of thinking about it. I mean, you had some help from the Judeo-Christian tradition,

that's for sure. But the UK is performed a pretty stellar job on that front. And now here you are with hate crime officers and people like you being interviewed under caution. And so what does that do to you as a UK citizen? Well, at first, first I thought it was a joke because they text me. So I just I just assumed I didn't know we were so strapped for cash that they would send me a text to ask me to go do an interview. But I think the realisation that the police are ideologically captured should instill fear into everybody. Like, whatever they are, even if it was an ideology that I agreed with, I think it should

still make you afraid because the law should be the law and it should just be quite cold, black and white, right or wrong, and quite happy with those things. So to know that they've been ideologically captured was significant, the fact that they sent officers from the opposite side of the country and they stayed a night in a hotel in order to interview me. Oh, that's interesting. So they didn't use local officers? No, no. Oh yeah, that's sneaky. I mean, this is I've done this three times for one of them was saying that there was a so in Bryson last year, I said that a woman who called herself and trans man and then non-binary just actually she'd said disparaging

things about lesbians because she wish she could have been one and accepted herself and I was I was in front of the police again that was a that was police from the opposite side of the country from Brighton to the west where I live and it's just utterly insane. The other occasion I had please set my door to police officers because and I quote I had been untoward about pedophiles. And I don't know about you, Jordan, but I thought they were one group of people if any, you could be untoward about where pedophiles are. Oh, yes. Well, spoken like a true fascist, you and your prejudice against pedophiles.

So, yeah, well, hopefully, hopefully you won't... Well, we're probably going to get canceled on YouTube for this interview anyways, but now you've made it a virtual certainty. You and your prejudice against minor attracted persons, let's say, do you know that 53% of mothers with children who purport to have gender dysphoria, have borderline personality disorder or something roughly equivalent. And so you could say as a clinician, if you weren't lying or compelled to lie by your government,

which is by the way, now the case for all clinicians, that the suspicion properly raised when confronted by any child who has gender dysphoria is that the mother has borderline personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder is a very, very serious disorder. And it's associated with cluster B in the DSM4, and that's where all the traits like anti-social personality, and narcissism, and psychopathy, and childhood conduct disorder,

et cetera, all cluster. And so the Mermaid's mother, you know, she's one to be viewed with suspicion, to say the least, especially given what she did to her son, which to call it reprehensible and inexcusable is to say that Joseph Mangali was not a very nice boy. And she, it's very interesting to see that you're in a situation in the UK

where someone who's as bent and twisted as that can operate an entire charity and wield social influence and also set up circumstances so that someone like you can be persecuted by the police. Yeah. That's quite the inversion. See, this doesn't seem to me to be political anymore when it comes to that. It's something far darker than the mere political. I don't know what do you think about that. You said that you're not religious, that you're atheistic,

but you understand that there's a strange sort of battle going on. Do you still construe it fundamentally in political terms? That it's a battle between, say, belief systems? How do you conceptualize the war that you find yourself in? I think my view on it is instinctive and perhaps I'm quite lucky that I don't try and rationalise my instincts. I just go with them. It's always kept me pretty safe and that's what I talk to my children about. That's like one of the big lessons is if it feels wrong, it's wrong and if you're, if actually it was a safe situation that you left, there's no harm. But you know, trust your instincts. I think it's, I think a lot has happened in order to get to this point. I think one of the biggest

things as I move through this movement is the lack of community. And I wonder if, if we didn't almost so far away from our natural communities, I wonder if people would get away with this stuff because we would have a broad range of people in our lives of all different ages that would be talking to us all the time and we would get a wide sort of plethora of views on any given anything. And I think we'd learn actually that human behavior

is pretty standard, whether you were in the 1400s, the 1800s all right now. I think our impulses and urges are pretty similar, if not the society in which we live. Maybe we don't exercise them in the same way or express them in the same way, but I think that we are as old as time and I don't think we change that much.

But I think it just goes down to currency again and I think borderline personality disorder or not and I'm inclined to agree with you. But women get sort of social cutos from transitioning their kids. I mean, I always say to people, you know, if somebody said, oh, I live next door to John, he's a racist,

you should, he's, nobody would say, oh, that's great. Well done, you must be so lucky. But if someone said, I live next door to someone, she's got a beautiful trans son. People are then engaged in this nonsensical kind of why that's so great. And I say to people all the time, you should say, Oh gosh, that's awful. That poor kid. That's what you should be saying, that poor kid, because we know. Apparently the actress Megan Fox has three boys

who are all trans. I'm so shocked, because she seems such a, such a resolute sensible woman. Yeah, well, the, I think the odds of that I think are one in 27 million. Because you, the odds of having one trans kid, this is before all this blew up and became, you know, a statistical morass because you can't really estimate the prevalence accuracy anymore. Of course, because it's become a social contagion. But originally, the estimates were something like one in 3,000. And I think that was probably an overestimate, but whatever it's close enough. And so the probability you'll have two trans kids is one in nine million. And the probability that you'll have three is one in 27 million.

So you think, well, the odds that the mother is a, what would you say, a narcissist willing to sacrifice your children to MoLocke for the elevation of her own moral stature is 26,999,999 to one. 9999,999 to one. So you think that. Then you've got jazz genics, haven't you? You've got jazz genics. Yeah, yeah. Having a whole program about him and his distress. I mean, if that isn't an advertisement

for do not do anything to your kids, I don't know what it is. It's scary. Yeah, well, the question is, what has that been an advertisement for? I mean, when someone like you watches that program, you think, oh my God, there's a little, what would you say, window into the abysmal, but I would say in all probability that that has the fundamental consequence of that show

has been that a whole parade of currency seeking virtue, signaling, narcissistic, compassionate mothers have figured out a great way to exploit their children to gain social currency. Yeah. Because they don't care. Yeah. For Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, they just made a sex tape. They haven't sacrificed their kids. No, maybe, maybe mothers should be encouraged to do that instead.

I haven't joking. And being facetious. But it's like, I don't know why. do that instead. I am joking. I'm being facetious. But it's like, I don't know why. See, you're on a different journey. I don't know why they're different. They're right. You're on anti-territory. You're trying to organize out the different levels of hell, right?

Well, I think we are in, we are kind of in one, in a kind, you know, in both of our, well, in Canada, Canada in America in the UK Australia New Zealand where actually there is there is a churning through of children into this cult I think it's it's a certain level of hell all of his own and the fact that you can't well in Canada We pride ourselves we pride ourselves in Canada on being on the cutting edge of that particular bit of putry So to speak and and you know, our prime minister, he's like virtue signaling king of the universe. And one of the things that's really appalling about that is that he really does have Canadian women fooled. You know, and it's really

something to watch because most Canadian women still think that Justin Trudeau is the right leader for the times. And it's because he's got that superficial charm and grace that goes along with his consummate acting ability. And he can use compassion to guise this true nature like nobody's business. And so Canada is in rough shape in consequence on all sorts of fronts. And, you know, thank God we lost just into our durn and also Nicole Asturgeon. She was a really interesting example to me.

I thought it was so fascinating to see because she really fell into the leftist abyss in a most profound way because her stance was, well, of course, any man who says he's a woman is a woman. And the right rejoinder to that was the one that the journalist who really nailed her provided, which was every man, a, every one, a, how about the psychopathic serial sex offenders? How about them? Well, of course, they're women, too. It's like, okay,

fair enough. Let's play that. I don't see how it goes, right? Trans, man, trans women, whatever the hell they are, demented men who claim to be women so that they can get access to women, you're gonna feel sorry for them. That's your doctrine on the political front, you know, that pretty much didn't Nicole Esturgeonin and it was well deserved. Kelly, what do you want?

What is it that you're trying to accomplish? Like if you look five years down the road and you're successful in whatever it is that you're doing, what does success look like to you? I think it looks like a repealing of the GRAs, so there's no more legal fiction. The GRAs are gender recognition act in which men or women can pretend that they're the opposite sex and be legally recognized.

I think if we take that away, I think we begin to get this out of our institutions. I'd like women to be able to go to hospital and if they ask for a female member of staff, that's what's delivered. Here at Stony for Women with my organisation we did some research and only four out of all NHS trusts in the UK which are plentiful so every single area has a different NHS trust. They only recognised 4%, I think it was or 4 out of all of them, recognised a man who called himself a woman as a different thing to an actual woman. So what that would mean, for example, there is an acute mental health ward for women in

a hospital, I think it's in Sussex. And the head nurse there is a man who wears fetish nurse gear for kicks outside of the hospital. He now calls himself a woman. And the first thing he did as the head nurse of this acute psychiatric ward for women who clearly have been through probably, a good 50% maybe trauma at the hands of men

and male violence. He moved his office down to where these women sleep and he was celebrated for that. So I won't women. Oh, that's fun. That's great. That's one of the most demented stories I've ever heard. So thank you for.

I know. Thank you so much, everyone. Please do. You can have a look at the photos. It's, I just don you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details.

Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details.

Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details.

Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank you, I'll send you some full details. Thank so this is, once you can lie to people and say, a woman has a penis or a baby has a sexuality, once you can tell these massive lies and people go along with it, they're susceptible to go along with pretty much anything. That's, yeah, that you really put your finger on it there. That's, I think that's exactly right. If you can force people to swallow the

insistence that a man is a woman, then you've blown out the law of non-contradiction completely, and you are now allowed not only to say any damn thing you want, but to insist that everybody abide by it like it's the dictates of God himself. Yeah, absolutely. It's quite the trick. It's quite the trick. They must not question it. I mean, we know, I did theology as a degree. It's a very long story, but I am a Gold Star atheist, so I've never had belief in God at all. I was brought up in an atheist household with a relapse Catholic mother.

But there's just, there's something so religious about it in the sort of dogmatic way that you cannot question at all. It is like a religion from like the 1500s. It's so insane. The thing that frightens me, I'm afraid, is that there are no non-religious beliefs, that not in the final analysis. And if the religious belief that properly unifies people is sacrificed, this is sort of the Nietzschean observation about the death of God, what you see is, you don't even see the rise of new religions, Kelly,

I don't think what you see is a regression to archaic forms of religious belief, and that's essentially a polytheistic paganism. And so, you know, it's interesting to talk to you because it looks to me like you're someone who's come to believe in the devil, but not in God. And I did make a illusion to that earlier. And I'm not, I'm not, by the way way rendering judgment on that one way or another. But you're also seeing that there is a religious element to this cult like move that you're opposing. And

you might ask yourself, and I suspect you probably do, is that, well, what's the alternative to that? You know, and what I've seen is that the kind of humanism that's been put forward as a moral alternative by the humanist types and they're generally atheistic has proved to be not only a force that's absolutely 100% unable to stop this tide of strange polytheistic paganism but has actually enabled it. That does beg the question, well, what do you have as a replacement? Your replacement today was, you rely on your, you said on your instincts, you know, and you're in intrinsic sense of what's right and what's wrong and you let that guide you.

And, you know, that works out pretty well if, if you're well constituted and your moral sentiments are properly, what functioning properly in the absence of too much delusion, but you know, it's not a reliable source for people who are unbelievably and deeply confused. And so we're all going to have to contend with the question of what is it that we should believe as an alternative to this strange cult like narcissistic nonsense that seems to be spreading threatening us on all fronts. So what's next for you? Sorry, maybe you have some comments about that. Well, I just think about the religion.

I'm not so stupid and that I don't acknowledge that I was brought up in a country that was religious, certainly my formative years. And I do think the lack of religion and common purpose and community that I think religion and faith brings, I do think when there is a vacuum created, then we do fill it with some pretty terrible things. So I wonder if after all this chaos, people will be looking for a very prescriptive religion and I wonder if Islam will be the same that slots very

happily into that place because it does give people order. And I just think that what comes after no boundaries and I think people will be looking for really clear and size boundaries to keep them safe because we are going to end up in a place where we don't feel very safe because not even the ground that we stand upon will fill particularly solid. So I am, I've got a lot of very religious friends who tell me that I'm the most Christian atheist they've ever met. And I'll probably end up being some sort of evangelical pastor before my days on this earth. Probably. You'll end up canonized that would be that would be good revenge on you.

That's for sure. That'd be God's little joke for you. Yeah. So, well, look, we're kind of running out of time here on this front for everybody watching and listening. I'm going to flip over to the dailywear plus platform and continue to talk to Kelly and get to know her a little bit better, walk her through her biography so that I can, and everyone listening can understand where she's coming from and why. And so if you'd be inclined to join us there, that you'd be more than welcome, of course, and that would also give you the opportunity to support the Daily Wear, which you really might want to think about doing, especially because at the moment, all the people who are participating in that venture are under pretty sustained attack from YouTube and the Google puppet masters that are behind it and God only knows what sort of weird radicals

are nested in the crevices of that organization. That's become rather dire recently. I'm sure the discussion I have with Kelly here is going to be banned by YouTube, but probability that's really high because YouTube banned my discussion with Helen Joyce. And of course, Helen Joyce is just a journalist for the economist in a very well-regarded person. So what the hell does she know? So the probability that this talk will disappear upon its emergence is quite high. And the probability that my YouTube channel is going to go up in flames in the next year emergence is quite high. And the probability that my YouTube

channel is going to go up in flames in the next year is also quite high. So anyways, having said all that, you might want to give some consideration to lending some support to the daily wire plus platform because they're at least somewhat of an alternative. I know they're made out of reprehensible conservatives and fascists of all stripes, but compared to the woke mob and their carnivorous motivations, I think they're quite preferable. So you could join Kelly and I on the dailywear plus platform if you're inclined to it. Kelly, thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today. I appreciate that very much.

It's good that you had an opportunity to share your experiences with everybody who's watching and listening. And good luck. I hope the bloody, I hope the bloody tooth mob stays the hell away from you and it allows you to continue what you're doing. And you know, we'll talk about that a little bit more when we go over to the dailywear plus side. Thank you so much for having me.

It was an absolute pleasure.