Sexual predators don’t come with a flashing neon sign, but there are often clues. Adults who seek to blur boundaries around children’s safety – particularly those who are quick to dismiss concerns over safeguarding as ‘transphobia’ – deserve to be heavily scrutinised. The conviction of Stephen Ireland, co-founder of Pride in Surrey, is a stark reminder of why such vigilance is necessary.
This week, proud trans activist Ireland was convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy he met on Grindr, a gay dating app. He was also found guilty of three counts of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, one count of sexual assault of a child under 13, and six counts of making indecent images of children. Ireland’s partner, David Sutton, was convicted of making indecent images of children and possessing extreme pornography. Messages exchanged between the pair, revealed during the trial, were deeply disturbing, detailing plans for child abduction and abuse.
Sutton had previously volunteered with Pride in Surrey, and Ireland was an influential figure within the LGBT community. He enjoyed a position as a patron of the now defunct charity, Educate and Celebrate – an organisation that offered trans-inclusive resources and training to nurseries, schools and colleges.
Pride in Surrey has condemned Ireland’s actions, saying it remains ‘committed to prioritising the safety and wellbeing of our community’. But it is not the LGBT community that needs to be safeguarded – it is the children targeted by men like Ireland and Sutton.
It is worth remembering that, during the heyday of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), it wasn’t the liberal elite who stood against paedophiles. It was ordinary people, including many radical feminists, who saw them for the abusers they were. But because the National Front also campaigned against PIE in the Seventies, opponents were sometimes derided as bigots and Nazis. Sections of the academic left dismissed them as being motivated by hatred of what they did not understand. This all sounds eerily familiar.
Today, to ask questions about the motivations of some trans activists is to risk being smeared as bigoted and ‘transphobic’. Indeed, at around the same time Ireland and Sutton were sharing their paedophilic fantasies, Pride in Surrey launched a campaign against Surrey police and crime commissioner Lisa Townsend, accusing her of transphobia. Townsend, an elected Conservative representative, had expressed concern about the impact of Stonewall-influenced trans policies on women’s safety. In response, Pride in Surrey set up an action group specifically to lobby for Townsend’s removal from office. Trans activists went as far as reporting her to the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, which ultimately cleared her of any breach of public conduct. Even former Tory MP for Reigate, Crispin Blunt (another avowed trans activist), added his voice to the complaints. This sparked an investigation into Townsend, but was once again dismissed.
It has become increasingly clear that, just as PIE supporters sought cover behind legitimate gay groups, there are some abusers today who still camouflage their actions with the Progress Pride flag. And yet too many LGBT groups are blind to this possibility. Meanwhile, they smear those asking questions about gender ideology and safeguarding as bigots.
Obviously, not every man who identifies as transgender is a risk. Nor are these LGBT groups fronts for child abuse. But it seems fair to ask who really benefits from the campaigns of trans activism, and why the movement attracts so many wrong ’uns. It is beyond time we exposed the abusers hiding behind the Pride movement.
Jo Bartosch is a journalist campaigning for the rights of women and girls.
