CPS Schools Project: The Erasure Of Sex And The Silencing Of Girls

The Crown Prosecution Service has devised lesson plans for pupils aged 11-16 to teach them awareness of hate crimes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pupils. The CPS Schools Project is a free educational resource pack developed with the help of Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall and the Ministry of Justice and includes dramatised scenarios, a power point and a full teaching pack from which we have taken the quotes below. It includes extensive training in both recognising, and understanding sentencing guidelines for hate crimes, together with role-play scenarios where pupils can play the part of police arresting someone on hate crime charges.

Although we agree with the aim of raising awareness of homophobic bullying and its impact on targeted pupils, the issue is not so simple when it comes to defining ‘transgender hate crime.’ Accepting and respecting someone as gay or lesbian is not the same as accepting that a boy is a girl.

Being forced to accept and agree with another person’s personal identity when it contradicts biological reality has particularly serious implications for girls. Sex-segregated facilities are established as part of basic safeguarding policies, specifically to protect girls in situations where they are physically vulnerable. To suddenly say that a boy is female does not change the fact that he is male.

Trans activists will insist that there have been no recorded incidents of ‘transwomen’ assaulting women in public toilets or changing rooms. Of course that is not true, but the point is irrelevant anyway: this guidance gives any man or boy an easy means to access girls’ private spaces, based only on his own self-declared ‘gender identity’ which nobody is allowed to challenge.

Under the guise of protecting ‘LGBT’ pupils, the CPS schools project is in reality the thinly disguised promotion of a trans activist agenda; explicitly in regard to male rights to access female spaces, together with the enforcement of a blanket ‘affirmation only’ response to trans-identified young people. The obfuscating definition of ‘lesbian’ (quoted below) also implicitly supports the manipulation of young lesbians to accept males as sexual partners or be seen as ‘transphobic.’ This teaching resource takes that agenda into schools.

We have analysed the document to show exactly what messages girls will be getting from these lessons; use of bold is ours and our comments are in italics.

CPS Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Hate Crime Schools Project

Classroom activities and guidance for teachers

The document begins by advising teachers to first educate themselves by looking at Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and resources on The Classroom, which directs teachers to the GIRES teaching resource The Gender Question? as one of its ‘Science’ resources:

Teaching girls that they have ‘pink brains’ is the kind of sexist stereotyping traditionally used to hold back and deny rights to girls and women, placing girls as the naturally inferior sex. This sets the scene for what is to follow:

“The CPS regards homophobic and transphobic crimes as particularly serious because they undermine people’s right to feel safe about and be safe in their sexual orientation, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual, and in their gender identity, whether they are women or men and including trans men and women. Such crimes are based on prejudice, discrimination and hate and they do not have any place in an open and democratic society.”

Aligning ‘T’ with ‘LGB’  suggests to adolescent girls that their discomfort about a boy being in their toilet is not only ‘transphobic’ but ‘anti-LGBT rights.’ 

Girls also have a right to feel safe. But girls are taught that any objection to a male classmate in their toilets or changing-rooms can only be based on bigotry and hate; that they are bad people if they feel uncomfortable or threatened by males in their private spaces. This is victim-blaming. Only the male pupil’s feelings are important:

“There is no statutory definition of a homophobic or transphobic incident. However, when prosecuting such cases, and to help us to apply our policy on dealing with cases with a homophobic or transphobic element, we adopt the following definition: “Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim, or by any other person.”

So if  naming a male as male is perceived by him to be transphobic, girls are guilty of a hate crime.  He is the victim, not the girls who are made to feel uncomfortable. Girls must consider a boy’s feelings above their own valid need for privacy, comfort and safety.

Next, pupils are taught the standard trans activist redefinition of the word ‘lesbian’ in this glossary of terms:

“Sexual orientation: a combination of emotional, romantic, sexual or affectionate attraction to another person
Heterosexual: being attracted to people of the opposite sex
Bisexual: being attracted to people of both sexes
Homosexual: originally the term ‘homosexual’ was used by scientists and doctors to describe same sex attraction and behaviour as a sign of mental disorder and moral deficiency. To obtain distance from such medical labels, the terms gay and lesbian are now used.
Lesbian: a woman who is attracted to other women
Gay: a term that is used to describe a man who has an emotional and/or sexual orientation towards men.”

Only ‘heterosexual’ and ‘bisexual’ are given correct definitions. The term ‘homosexual’ itself here is written out, on spurious grounds. ‘Lesbian’ is not correctly defined as a woman who is same-sex attracted, but one who is attracted to ‘women,’ thus allowing the inclusion of self-identified ‘women’ who are male. This subtle difference in definitions is significant; it suggests nothing other than a manipulation of terms in order to justify the coercion of young lesbians to accept males with penises as sexual partners if those males identify as ‘lesbian women.’  Lesbians alone are not described as ‘sexually’ attracted to anyone, a definition which can only benefit males who wish to hide the fact that their interest in lesbians is sexual. 

Gendered Intelligence clarify their reframing of sexual orientation as ‘gender’ orientation in this statement from their sexual health guide for young people:

Trans activists are pressuring young lesbians to have sex with the ‘women who enjoy getting blow jobs’ or be accused of ‘transphobia’. No such pressure is being applied to young gay men.  

This is the explanation of ‘transgender’: 

“Transgender/trans: is a term that identifies the spectrum of those who feel that their assigned sex at birth does not match or sit easily with their sense of self.
• It encompasses transsexual people, transgender people and cross dressers, or anyone who challenges gender norms
• It may be that a trans person feels more the “opposite” sex and so chooses to use medical intervention in order to align their body with their mind, their external appearance with their internal feelings
• Cross dressers may dress to express the more masculine or feminine side of themselves, or simply because they find those clothes more comfortable
Transphobia: Transphobia is the fear or dislike of someone who identifies as transgendered or transsexual
This glossary is based on glossaries published by Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence.”

Anyone who ‘challenges gender norms’ is transgender, so unless you’re a stereotype you need to question yourself. This is the idea which is misleading young people into thinking they are ‘trans’ – overwhelmingly, teenage girls. 

“Opposite” is put in scare quotes as if ‘opposite sex’ is a contested idea. The meaning of ‘transgender’ is incoherent and so wide as to be meaningless. There is no mention of gender dysphoria; so to be ‘transgender’ requires no diagnosis other than someone’s self-declared personal feelings. This glossary essentially protects any boy who likes to wear women’s clothing for whatever reason, and allows him access to girls’ private spaces through his own uncontestable assertion that he ‘identifies’ as a woman based on his unfalsifiable ‘internal feelings.’ All protection for girls is taken away; they have no legal right to challenge this.

The definition of ‘gender identity’ conflates masculine and feminine with boy and girl. It suggests that feeling ‘feminine’ makes you a girl but nowhere is it explained how:

“Gender identity describes a person’s sense of self in terms of being masculine or feminine or a boy or a girl. Gender identity is not necessarily dictated by a person’s physiology.”

Students are then given information about why the CPS regards hate crimes as particularly serious, given examples of sentencing guidelines, and a list of reasons that anti-LGBT bullying is more serious than other forms of bullying. This would be absolutely terrifying for teenage girls who feel threatened by a male classmate in their toilets or changing rooms – or girls who just want to be in a girls-only group:

“Categories of anti-LGBT hate crime or LGBT hate incidents
• Ostracising and excluding from friendship groups for reasons of sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or perceived gender identity.

• Outing someone as gay or transgender”

This means that girls cannot exclude any boy who identifies as a girl from a friendship group, girls are no longer entitled to  female-only spaces. Correctly identifying males as males is reclassified as ‘outing’ them, which is a hate crime. 

Case Studies

Gay, lesbian and bi-sexual pupils get one case scenario each; transgender pupils get two and in both of these, it is girls who are shamed as the transphobic bullying bigots. In reality, trans people are most at risk from male violence. These case studies are deliberately misleading in their clear message that discrimination against trans people is the fault of girls. Girls are already socialised to be the caretakers of males and it is girls here who are given the responsibility as caretakers of trans equality. The first case scenario leads girls in through a representation of girls bullying one of their own (who cuts her hair short and returns to school as a ‘boy’) and the second takes them to the real heart of the matter: accepting males into their toilets.

Case Study 4: Transition

In this scenario, the ‘trans’ pupil is overweight, so there is an immediate familiar stereotype created of ‘nasty, bitchy girls picking on the fat, unpopular girl in the class.’ The only person who shows any discomfort about what is going on is a boy watching. Girls are so bitchy to other girls!

Obviously it is unkind to make fun of someone in this way, but when a girl here says “you’re not a ‘he’ you’re a ‘she'” she is being factually correct. This is not the simple scenario it’s made out to be. There has been a huge spike in teenage girls suddenly identifying as boys and given that there is a corresponding growth of  a community of young women subsequently regretting their ‘transition,’ is it right to ask girls to collude in the reinforcement of an identity which may change, leaving these young women with irreversible physical and psychological effects? How responsible would these girls feel later on for their part in encouraging an adolescent girl to head towards the path of transition? If they were in possession of all the facts, would girls perhaps find other more thoughtful ways of accepting and supporting a classmate who identifies as ‘trans’?

Is it in the best interests of girls who may be lesbians, on the autistic spectrum, or suffering body-hatred and self-harming behaviours to be affirmed by everyone around them that they are really boys? Is this not just a way of absolving ourselves of the responsibility to look at what’s really going on with this unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly identifying as boys? 

This scenario makes teenage girls pawns in the activist campaign for ‘affirmation’ as the only allowed response to any trans-identified child or adolescent. By referring to the pupil as a ‘boy’ throughout, the teacher’s notes reinforce the idea that there is only one acceptable way to respond to a ‘trans’ classmate: follow the trans activists’ demands to “affirm the person’s preferred gender.”

“Ask the students what happened in the clip. Ask the students what they thought about the students’ attitude and behaviour to the boy coming back to school. Do they think that the students had any understanding of the boy’s situation? How do they think the boy felt?
• When transgender people begin to live as the gender with which they identify, rather than the one assigned at birth this is called transitioning. Part of the process is to live in the new gender socially, in education and at work.
• Explain to the class that not everyone who lives in the gender they identify with has hormone treatments or surgery. The most important thing to remember is to treat people the way they wish to be treated.”

This forces adolescents into a belief, or at least pretense of a belief, that a girl is really a boy (and, by extension, that your sex is just something someone randomly decides at your birth, and irrelevant to whether you are a boy or a girl). All ‘trans’ pupils must be treated the way they wish to be treated, although girls have no right to be treated in the way they wish if they want to be treated as the female sex with rights to sex-based protections. The teachers’ guide for the class discussion spells out what kind of person you are if you don’t believe this new ideology: 

 “She is ignorant, and asks, “So when did you decide you wanted to be a boy then?”
• Ask the class why Nathaniel answers “I didn’t decide it. I just am.” Make sure they all understand what that means.”

Presumably this means re-education into ‘innate gender identity’ ideology, a belief with no credible scientific basis. The class ‘discussion’ is followed by a writing exercise:

“Choose to be any person in the pictures, and write a thoughtful letter to Nathaniel about what happened, what you hope will happen in the future, and what your role will be in achieving it.”

And here’s the warning for girls who feel conflicted about these demands:

“• This may be a Section 4a Public Order offence as the people directing the comments are intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress.”

Case Study 5: Toilet choice

This is the most manipulative scenario; the one that all the previous shaming of girls leads up to. Having been immersed in LGBT case scenarios, class discussions, writing exercises and a thorough grounding in hate crime sentencing guidelines, girls are finally led, unknowingly, to the erosion of their sex-based rights and protections. 

In this scenario, a ‘transwoman’ enters the Ladies. Two young women at the sinks whisper their discomfort between themselves: “What’s he doing in here? This is the Ladies,” ‘forcing’ the transwoman to try the Gents’ toilets next time. Here, the transwoman is confronted by two middle-aged bigoted male thugs.

The most physically threatening man bangs on the toilet door, yelling “what you doing in there? You freak!” No teenager, male or female, would want to align themselves with the views of these old past-it men who clearly represent ‘old-fashioned ignorance.’ Their physically threatening response and offensive language paints them clearly as pantomime baddies. 

The most insidious suggestion in this case scenario though, is that it was the womens fault for not accepting a male into their toilet.  It is women’s job to protect males from male violence, by rolling over and allowing males into their toilets. The message is clear: women are responsible for male violence. Teenage boys get off scot free by not being represented in either ‘transgender’ scenario and the reactions of girls and young women are aligned with the bigotry of old men. 

In case pupils missed the message in the video, it is clarified in the following class discussion by this leading question:

“Can you say why the person went into the ladies’ toilets and not the mens’ toilets? How did the women behave towards her? How did that make her feel?”

It was the women’s fault

The class discussion centres on the hurt feelings of the male transgender person; there is no acknowledgment of how the young women may have felt. Use of the language ‘girl,’ ‘she’ and ‘her’ to describe the transgender person in the teachers’ notes means that teenage girls will identify with how it would feel if they were confronted by such men themselves.

“Thinking about how the girl in the clip was treated, can the class understand why she might have felt hesitant about going into the toilets?”

And the final lesson:

” •Transgender people must be supported to use all the facilities appropriate for the gender with which they identify themselves.”

So boys must be able to use girls’ toilets and changing rooms on the basis of ‘identifying’ as girls and girls must accept it. To reinforce the seriousness of this new crime of girls objecting to the presence of  males in their private spaces, girls are given this information:

“The students should find that the women and men can be charged with public order offences, in this case aggravated by hostility based on gender identity.”

But this is followed only by:

“They may consider that one man might be charged with the offence and the second charged with joint enterprise.”

It is almost as if coming straight out and saying explicitly that young women may be charged with an offense might actually start both the teachers and the girls thinking it through. What if it was an adult male exposing himself in a public changing room, would a teenage girl be charged with a hate crime for objecting? And why is the ‘toilet choice’ scenario the only one which is situated outside a school? This can only distract from the reality that adolescent girls are being told they must accept male classmates into their toilets if those males identify as female. 

Looking at the Learning Outcomes, what teenage girl would dare to speak out about her discomfort ever again?

“Activity 1 Concepts to be enhanced: Legislation and consequences The exercise should bring out the potential criminal charges, including the concepts of ‘aggravated’, ‘motivated’, ‘witnesses’ and ‘joint enterprise’, and indicate possible consequences.

Activity 2 Concepts to be enhanced: Learning the range of anti-LGBT behaviours. Learning that consequences for perpetrators can become serious.”

These outcomes are followed, with no irony, by this instruction:

“Remind the class of the discussion about why people find it difficult to speak out.”

Girls are the pupils who face an epidemic of  sexual harassment and abuse in UK schools today, but this teaching guide takes away their most basic safeguarding protections and disempowers girls further through the deception, psychological manipulation and gas-lighting techniques most typically used by abusers.

Harassment and assault of girls on the basis of their sex is not, of course, recognised as a ‘hate crime.’

 

*Updated on March 13 2017 to correct the mistake that the final scenario was set inside a school; it in fact took place in public toilets outside a school.

16 Comments

  • Always the same Reply

    Of all the maddening things Ive read this week, this is the scariest. This tells me those who enforce the law and those who are responsible for the wellbeing of our children in school hours can’t see the wolf in sheep’s clothing. My daughter would be petrified if she were to be taught this in Year 7. Have you shared this with the TES forum? What do teachers think. Do you know how many schools have used this resource for PSHE?

  • Sue Veneer Reply

    This is terrifying. Are biology lessons to be changed in line with transgender ideology?
    It really is becoming like Mao’s Cultural Revolution…children will soon be encouraged to report their parents to the gender police if they refuse to accept this bullshit.

  • Gender Critical Dad Reply

    Thank you for the hard work and rigour you have put into this.

    Its becoming more and more obvious that self declared gender experts will use any excuse to spread their homophobic misogynist dogma to children.

  • Stacey Charlesworth Reply

    “The Crown Prosecution Service has devised lesson plans….”
    “The CPS Schools Project is a free educational resource pack developed with the help of Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall and the Ministry of Justice and includes dramatised scenarios, a power point and a full teaching pack”

    OK I don’t have kids. So I don’t know much about schools but – how can this stuff be allowed to just float into the teaching of kids today? Doesn’t it have to be reviewed/approved or whatever?????????????
    It’s so frustrating to read about this over and over and feel powerless to do anything.
    I wrote to my MP about the Gender Identity Bill, getting its 2nd reading on March 24th, weeks ago. No reply. Thanks Dianne Abbott – suppose she’s kept very busy destroying the Labour Party……

    The trans cult is becoming bolder and bolder and why not when things such as this CPS guideline drivel are already being pushed through with no debate or discussion. I swear the wider public has NO idea about all this, the liberal ones are saying “Let them pee where they want” and others maybe it just hasn’t touched them.

    Am so angry about it all.

  • Nigel Reply

    There has to be a ‘normal’ for society to work. Attempting to alter the perception of what is ‘normal’ for 99.7% of the population, to accomodate 0.3% of the population is social engineering at its worst.

  • Sarah Reply

    I have real concerns over the trangender issues that are coming up now and the implications for women and children. But I have read the teacher notes in full and I do not feel this is an accurate representation of what the resource is about. I have worked in this field of education, and recognise that the resource is not perfect, as very few PSHE resources from official organisations are, but it is not as controversial and inflammatory as it is made out to be here. There are issues – but I urge people to read it through fully before getting distressed by it. I was very distressed by this report, but now feel let down by this page.

    • Transgender Trend Reply

      Of course there is much more in the guide than outlined here. But this piece was a critical analysis of the messages teenage girls would get specifically from the transgender section as well as the sexual orientation definitions. The material itself is controversial, there was no attempt here to sensationalise it further, but just document it and examine it. It would be helpful to know specifically what you feel is inflammatory. Thanks for commenting.

    • Transgender Trend Reply

      Hi Sarah, we combed through the teaching pack again and realised that the ‘toilet choice’ scenario was set outside a school so we have corrected that mistake. It is really important to us that we are 100% accurate in what we report so thank you for making us look again. We don’t think this changes the point we are making in any way, although we accept that it could be seen as ‘inflammatory’ to represent it as we did. This was a genuine mistake, we do try not to be ‘sensationalist’ but just direct and clear. Please let us know if you have further concerns, feedback is important to us (you can use the contact form if you would rather not write in the comments). Thank you.

      • Sarah Reply

        Second attempt to leave a reply! Apologies if I leave things out – but short on time.
        I am pleased that you have changed your response to the toilet scene. Completely misrepresenting this leads to a lack of respect from people, such as myself, who are very concerned by transgender issues and want to listen to what you have found out and what you have to say. I feel there are some real issues for the small number of transgender people in our society, and that some of this should be represented in teaching in schools – for the sake of the individuals who may or may not have been able to speak about their feelings about being on the transgender ‘spectrum’, but also because it is VITALLY important that all young people are given a safe environment with their peers to discuss different points of view regarding LGBT issues. It is on social media, tv and in the press and without PSHE lessons they are not able to really talk about these kinds of issues freely within a lesson with ground rules for safe supported discussion. The PSHE association is a good place to see what resources are recommended for schools – and I don’t think this is one that they recommend. My background is in specialist PSHE advisory teaching and school support.
        I have looked through all the teachers’ notes – they are not the best I have ever seen, and yes if you took out the transgender items alone and presented these without the support of the rest of a unit on LGBT it would be very pro transgender – but they are not designed to stand alone – that would go against all guidance and no PSHE teacher would do that as a program of study. I cannot see a strong bias against girls throughout the teachers’ notes – I see open ended questions that actually any teacher could use to allow in depth discussion and also allow pupils to question the resources and scenarios – this is what teachers are encouraged to do. They share the source of resources with pupils – so any resource from the police, or in this case the CPS, will always be biased towards the law – and that is because it is about the law. So all drugs or road traffic resources are heavy on law facts. PSHE resources from a Family planning organisation will be very biased towards where to go for free contraceptive help. Resources from a religious groups will of course have their bias. All schools know this and use resources accordingly – they don’t pick them up and read a script.
        I don’t think this resource is perfect, and yes, issues from the aggressive transgender side of things have crept in, but it represents where the law is right now, which is the worrying part of this debate – but what the CPS is about. So maybe it can give our young people a chance to discuss what is really right and wrong about this – not what the media is telling them?

        • Transgender Trend Reply

          Thanks for replying again Sarah, it is very helpful to hear your perspective with your background in specialist PSHE advisory teaching and school support. It’s reassuring to know that teachers would not just read a script – we don’t feel the script here facilitates discussion at all, but shuts it down (clearly because it’s written by transgender activist organisations). We agree that the law is the most worrying aspect, but don’t feel it has been represented accurately here – there still exists the exemption clause in the Equality Act 2010 for single-sex facilities and services and as far as we know individual schools can exercise discretion on their own policies re sex-segregated facilities and activities. ‘Sex’ is still a protected characteristic whereas ‘gender identity’ is not (it’s currently ‘gender reassignment’) but these notes suggest that ‘gender identity’ has replaced ‘sex’ as the legal distinction between boys and girls. It’s worrying that this can be presented to teachers (and, in PSHE classes, to girls especially) as a done deal with no discussion, and that teachers with no knowledge of the issues may take this at face value (through a well-meaning desire to protect ‘trans’ pupils). It is misleading to represent the issue as exactly the same as the protection of lesbian, gay and bi-sexual pupils, it requires much more careful and nuanced consideration, not least for the sake of pupils who identify as ‘trans’ themselves. Thank you for taking the time to explain the use of resources like this, it is very helpful information.

        • Sarah2 Reply

          You make valuable points Sarah and I agree that it is important that PSHE sessions enable open questioning and discussion. Encouraging students to form their own opinions (based on facts/evidence) is also important. I think that developing informed views helps to build resilience to bullying (the confidence to be ‘different’) and that what underlies much of this part of the curriculum actually comes down to learning to respect others’ views and beliefs (i.e. anti-bullying awareness).
          However, having said that, many schools are resorting to ‘the experts’ on this topic: organisations such as Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence are ‘delivering training’ in primary and secondary schools, rather than relying on professional PSHE practitioners (who will provide the wider context). Why is this, do you think, when school funding is so hard-pressed?
          Further, the CPS leaflet (link below) on Hate Crime seems rather muddled:
          “The following definition has been agreed between the Police and the CPS for identifying cases involving hostility based on [Equality Act 2010] protected characteristics:
          “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”…..”
          The leaflet then states:
          “There is no legal definition of hostility so the CPS uses the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”
          Good grief – we’re all guilty of being ‘unfriendly’ or expressing ‘dislike’ on occasion, aren’t we?!
          The leaflet does mention Freedom of Speech:
          “The offences that have been successfully prosecuted go well beyond the voicing of an opinion or the causing of offence.
          When considering whether or not to prosecute stirring up offences, there is a need to bear in mind that people have a right to freedom of speech. It is essential that in a free, democratic and tolerant society, people are able to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. The issues involved in such cases are highly sensitive and charges for stirring up hatred require the consent of the Attorney General in addition to the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service.”
          So, ultimately, we have the right to ‘cause offence’ …. What a minefield!
          https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/hate_crime_leaflet_support.pdf

  • EEDR Reply

    Good take down of these appallingly biased “resources.” This is so anti-girl.

  • Lori S. Reply

    This is a superb article. It is amazing that if a boy “feels victimized,” he is, but if a girl “feels scared,” she isn’t – she is bigoted. Talk about silencing females!

  • punkworked Reply

    Is anyone else angered by Jack Munro? Yesterday outside court looking feminine and referred to as she /ms. Not so many months ago telling her readers she was on testosterone and planning surgery on her breasts. My objection is the young girls influenced by her to make the same changes. Happy for her to make changes and choices but if you shout FTM from the roof tops do the same when you change your mind.

    • W Reply

      Um, who says the BBC didn’t just get their pronouns wrong?

  • Ben Reply

    What I find most interesting with the GIRES website is that there’s so little information on the organisation beyond it being staffed by volunteers, etc. No proclamation of who runs it or anything like that. Indeed, there’s only one file which mentions any of that at all and that’s a draft of minutes from the 2014 AGM that is only one page long. The entire AGM lasted 45 minutes. That file is here (PDF).

    Apparently the Chair and others had been re-elected unanimously. That Chair being one Celia MacLeod. A quick search revealed that one of the things not disclosed on the website is that Dr. MacLeod (Ob/Gyn) is a trans woman who transitioned in 2006. Apparently the Chair is also the founder and has directed the entire course of the organisations work and publications in that time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *