Jean Hatchet

Jean Hatchet wrote about anti-trans campaigners taking money and help from far-Right American groups The Heritage Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom. Her blog post has been taken down, after being widely shared among trans people. For the moment, there’s an archive link here. I have evidence of a soi-disant “left-wing” feminist taking far-right American money here. The amount Jean Hatchet named was $15,000.

She wrote, I don’t care what these people think about trans ideology. That cannot be separated from the things they do and advocate that specifically harm women. She named opposing abortion, supporting Mr Trump, and opposing divorce because it “causes social problems”.

There is a radical feminist argument against trans inclusion. I don’t accept it myself, but I see the intellectual basis for it. However these people paying the far-right money only care about excluding trans, and their ideas why are quite different. Most people don’t delve into those arguments: they don’t care about the specific arguments why men and women are different, and the result is to affirm the hard-right beliefs about those differences, which is the intention of those right-wing groups: differences of gender, of natural and normative personality and gifts, rather than of reproductive biology. That’s why the Times, Spectator and other media devote so much space to monstering trans women. The hard right campaign against trans people harms feminists, even gender-critical ones.

Jean Hatchet’s blog still contains her speech to the “We Need to Talk” anti-trans campaign. Trans rights campaigners should read it.

For women – their experience at the hands of violent men is not science fiction. They don’t wake one day and find themselves in the wrong body. They wake up and find themselves fighting for their lives. Or being raped. Or shielding their children from attack. They wake to find they are still facing a day where they will be humiliated and degraded and shamed and stripped of their confidence and human dignity by a man who hates them. He hates them because they are – not born in the wrong body – but born in a woman’s body. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly a male on female crime. Not a “gendered” crime. A “sexed” crime.

She quotes another woman’s experience: I hope one day [my story] may help others. My first encounter with male violence was at 6 months old, my dad damaged my skull after he punched me, violence continued against me until I was 3, when he then locked me in a bedroom and set fire to our house. Thankfully I was rescued by the fire department, but was immediately put into care. Things were fine until I reached 9, that was when the sexual abuse started. I was living in a care home. One of the carers was male. He abused me until I was able to leave at 16. After that I met my husband, from the start he beat me, raped me, and financially Destroyed me. But at that point I thought I deserved it, after all that has happened through my life I convinced myself that something was wrong with me, and this was all my fault. So I went along with it, I was defeated. 10 years later, I happened to find Mumsnet, and from that I found you, you changed all that for me, you gave me strength I never knew possible, you showed me this wasn’t my fault.

I can answer the error in her speech. She says, A piece of paper – a legal document downloaded from the internet will get determined, violent men like these easy access to a refuge if they want it. Not true: Layla Moran MP refuted it. See here.

The great triumph of the right-wing has been to set left-wing campaigners against each other. We have aided it ourselves- too often campaigning groups campaign for their own rights not for those of others, and some feminists campaign about the number of women on FTSE 100 boards rather than women in refuges. Trans women need to campaign on wider feminist issues. I am grateful to lesbian campaigners such as in Stonewall who recognise that the campaign against trans people will harm all queers, not just us. My cycling speed and endurance is probably nowhere near Jean Hatchet’s, but, whatever her views on trans rights I need to support her campaign against male violence.

December 2019: I see she’s been out successfully seeking notoriety by trying a bra on in a men’s changing room!!!

Shock, Horror!!!

It seems she was treated with the same bemused tolerance as the British use to other eccentrics, even trans women.

57 thoughts on “Jean Hatchet

  1. ‘Not a “gendered” crime. A “sexed” crime.’
    I’m afriad my immiedate response to this is to ask for citation to back that up.
    I’d suggest that it is actualy male socialisation (thus ‘gender’ as a social construct) which is responsible for the majority of the violence. Knowing some social science, I realise exactly how hard it is to produce any meaningful data to back this up.


  2. There are male victims of female violence and female coercive control. The proportions are fiercely debated. It depends on how you count them and how you find the crime people are too ashamed or too crushed to report.


    • I was going to only include physical violence here, and not coercive control – which I suspect frequently goes unreported regardless of gender/sex identies. But both need to be included otherwise there could be seen to be a bias of women being more likely to be coercive controllers than outright violent.

      This of course brings in the debate about reported crime vs. perceived crime – even when reported crime falls, perceived crime can rise. Both statistics are flawed and trying to to discover what crime actually happens is very hard – there are too many reasons why people don’t report things and actively cover up crimes they are victims of.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. And Jean cares passionately about male violence against women, and in context may be accusing trans women. Or just may not be recognising gender as meaningful in this situation.

        Edit: She cares about male violence against women and girls. If people mention female violence, she is entitled to be suspicious. So what? So, she should not campaign as she feels led, against VAWG? She is not arguing that no-one should campaign against female violence, though as male violence is more prevalent she might be suspicious of such campaigns; but she is entitled to campaign against VAWG.


  3. [Clare: Jean Hatchet calls Ciaran Goggins her stalker, and considers his comments defamatory. I find him to be a fantasist, traumatised by an arrest for rape which did not result in a conviction. At first I left his comments to show him up, not because I attached any credence to any remarks he made; however I have now deleted them, because of Jean Hatchet’s dislike of them not because of her threats of court action. Mr Goggins has probably defamed her, and probably copiously in many places.]

    No serious commentator reads Jean Hatchet after she was known to be [doxx deleted]. Jean [claim deleted].


    • Welcome, Ciaran. Thank you for commenting.

      I knew JH was a terf, but is that a reason to doubt her testimony that the US far right are funding British terfs?

      I have edited your comment to avoid doxxing. Doxx on your own blog.

      Liked by 1 person

        • The reason to believe her was that she was stating something against her interests. As you say, she is against trans rights as currently understood. She was in the US [edit: she only planned to go. She changed her mind when she learned of the far-right links] with other women with similar views about trans, and she reports that they were taking money from the Heritage Foundation. That is against the interests of her allies.

          I took the view that she took a left-wing anti-trans position rather than a right wing one. She says she admires the women involved, but did not agree with their right-wing meetings. That does not fit with at least some of what you said in your doxxing.

          Liked by 1 person

            • Considering that 1. Evans was found innocent 2. “Jean” [claim deleted] and 3. North Wales Police paid the Gruaniad it was great;) Oh a final point – I defeated the UK at ECtHR, far more than “Jean” ever did.


            • Ciaran, I see your About page claims I defeated the UK government at the ECHR (2012), my case focusing on retaining innocent people’s DNA samples. Liberty says the ECHR case on DNA retention was in 2008. That was the case S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04.

              Searching the ECHR site for “Goggins” produced this reference from a pdf: Goggins and Others v. the United Kingdom (striking out), nos. 30089/04 and 7 others, § …, 19 July 2011. I found the ECHR judgment in your case, which said that it had not been correctly pleaded with reference to photographs of you, and so you had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. I see for all your legal efforts, the Government offered you ex gratia £75. You vigorously protested: In letters of 12 November 2010 and 4 February 2011 Mr Goggins indicated that he was opposed to the striking out of his case. He referred to the illegal retention of his DNA data for over six years and insisted that they should now be deleted. He requested the quashing of his conviction, an undertaking from the Government that he would no longer face attempts at intimidation, full disclosure of data relating to him which were held on the Police National Computer and deletion of the DNA samples of innocent people in a transparent and independent process. He also requested compensation and considered the GBP 75 offered in his case to be unacceptably low. Some applicants sought the deletion of the data about them on the Police National Computer, but the ECHR refused to consider that. The court decided the payment of £75 was adequate and reasonable, and struck out your application.

              Therefore it is incorrect to say you “defeated the UK government”. The case was struck out, and had you made no legal challenge you would have received the same benefits under S and Marper.

              I also see that you were arrested after an allegation of rape, but the charges were dropped.


            • Marper got £43,000. Actually I did defeat the govt, the “Freedom Bill” ensured 7 million innocent folks had their samples deleted. I have inflicted an enormous amount of damage on plod and am far from finished. Well done on looking up BAILI. Odd you support “Jean” who [claim deleted]. Best Wishes, C.


            • I got it from, but yes, it’s on BAILII. You could have just linked it, and saved me some Googling. That would have been mere courtesy on your part. You made the claim, you should give the link to back it up.

              You see things in a terribly black and white way. I support Jean Hatchet in her campaigns against violence against women, and in her opposition to right-wing funding of British gender-critical feminists. I oppose her in her views on trans rights. On her allegation that you “stalked” her, I keep an open mind, but note your claim to have defeated the UK government is belied by the decision linked above where your case was struck out. From that, I find that you may fairly be accused in at least that one case of exaggerating your achievements (a peccadillo of many people, I find). So I find your accusation that she is “a stranger to veracity” rebarbative. This is not a matter of “supporting” her against you. I deleted the alleged address as I disapprove of doxxing, not because I support Jean Hatchet in particular.


            • Ciaran, the victory was Marper’s, not yours.

              What do you mean by “funded by plod”? Does some police service pay her for work she does? If so, what work?

              What would be the difference? The Heritage Foundation achieves its aims by funding terfs. Those terfs who imagine they are left-wing are therefore its dupes. I agree with Jean that this is against principles they claim to hold dear. I don’t know about any work Jean gets paid for, but I am willing to consider any evidence you have that it is against her claimed principles, shows her to be a hypocrite, or shows her other work to be compromised. I won’t hold my breath, though. I expect all you will do is make dark allegations, and fail to back them up. Ched Evans has moved on. Why can’t you?

              On Ched Evans, here a barrister explains the particular legal exception why his accuser’s sexual history was held to be relevant. Women’s rights campaigners claim it should never be. The section the barrister cites is an attempt to counter a perceived potential miscarriage of justice. Where past sexual history should or should not be admitted in a rape trial is a complex question. I note that the conviction stood without past sexual history being admitted, and was quashed when that history was put before the jury. I can accept the court’s decision that the sexual encounter was not rape, but it was disgusting and exploitative.


            • Marper was not a victory. My case was. As for payment, “Jean” ([doxxing deleted]) is [claims deleted]. That QC ought to have written protect “victims”. Either anonymity for both sides or neither. You are beginning to small like Old Bill.


            • Why do you care so much about Jean Hatchet? She calls you a stalker, I had not heard of her, why do you spend so much of your attention and brain-space on her?

              I don’t think that barrister is a QC. I thought she was quite clear that it is not established anyone is a “victim” until their evidence is tested. I have no wish to debate with you whether those accused of rape should be granted anonymity, but if you want to put your case here by all means go ahead.

              In what way did you win anything Marper and S. did not? Assert all you like, but having read the judgment in your case I will not believe you, unless you link to clear evidence. Here is the report on S. and Marper: at para. 77, the court says In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles discloses an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. That was after a public hearing before a Grand Chamber of seventeen judges and one deputy registrar in 2008. How is that not a win? What more did you achieve?

              I have written about the police behaving in an overbearing way. I hold no brief for them. I don’t think that payment from the police automatically discredits Jean Hatchet, though. I have no particular interest in defending her, but am curious as to why you care.


            • I said Bye earlier hoping you would take the hint. You are trolling and quite frankly it is odd that you white knight for [Jean], probably the worst TERF in England. Someone accessed my About page 200 times in the last few hours. You? English IP address. Have a nice life. Goodbye.


            • Trolling? I am asking questions which you could easily answer if any of your assertions had any merit. I have looked at your blog, but not 200 times, and I quoted it from the Google search page not from the blog itself. Go, or stay, I don’t mind.


  4. Dear Clare,

    Unfortunately you are hosting a number of defamatory comments by a known stalker. You are responsible for those comments.

    I politely ask that you remove those comments to avoid the need to instruct counsel.

    Would you also amend your own comments to reflect the inaccurate and defamatory comment that I was in the US alongside women on the recent visit to Heritage Foundation. I was not. I was not on the trip at all which the blog I wrote makes clear.

    Kind regards,

    Jean Hatchet


    • Dear Jean,

      Weary sigh. What do I say? She was in the US with other women with similar views about trans, and she reports that they were taking money from the Heritage Foundation. What do you say? I invited myself on a trip… I booked and paid for my own flight… I began to feel isolated from the group for saying I disagreed with the political decisions of other women. I was uncomfortable saying that I was unhappy with things because I was being housed in accommodation in Washington paid for by one of the WoLF women. I do not assert that you met with the Heritage Foundation, only that you went to the US. I took that from your post.

      I wondered whether to delete Mr Goggins’ more unpleasant comments, but after I delved into the documents which I quote here, to show that he is a fantasist, I took the view that his allegations against you were no more credible than his boasts about beating the British Government. As any reasonable person would ignore them, I did not consider they damage your reputation, but rather his.

      I have not done the research, but at the moment consider that WordPress is the publisher against whom you should make any legal threats, rather than me. There is no need to instruct counsel: solicitors are perfectly capable of dealing with the appropriate letters before action, should you decide to spend your hard-earned money on such things.


          • Thank you for trying to be fair. I am confused. You wrote on your blog, I invited myself on a trip… I booked and paid for my own flight… I began to feel isolated from the group for saying I disagreed with the political decisions of other women. I was uncomfortable saying that I was unhappy with things because I was being housed in accommodation in Washington paid for by one of the WoLF women. Now you write, “I was not on the trip at all”. What, precisely, do you allege that I have written that is defamatory?

            Separately, I consider Mr Goggins is a fantasist, and therefore his allegations against you have no weight. Do you agree?

            I see my blog post has now had 209 page-views. Several will be from Mr Goggins, and I presume several from you. Don’t you think threats of libel action are disproportionate to the threat to your reputation? One employee at the theatre saw the card calling Oscar Wilde a “somdomite”, but the libel trial occasioned significantly more publicity.

            From what you say, I could change what I have said in my post and my comments above (I am happy to edit the comment) to make clear that while I reported you were in the US on the basis of your blog post, you now say that you were not, and I have no reason to disbelieve that. I see that your blog post has been deleted, and I could only access it on web archive. Did you write that you were in the US? If so, why? If not, why does the archive appear as it does?


  5. I was not on the trip. I was at home and I have taken great criticism for being honest about my reasons for not going. My blog is still there and makes this very clear. Nothing has been changed.

    I would prefer that you did amend to make this clear. Defamation action is horrible from both sides of this debate but you are currently hosting here a number of accusations from that monstrous man and it would be so easy to avoid. The man is an obsessed, parasitical loner and unfortunately he has been successful in lodging his obsession here with you.

    Please remove them as soon as you are able.

    My very best wishes.


    • This is your archived blog post in full:

      I’m going to state really simply. Stripped of opinion and emotion. as far as reasonably possible.

      1. I invited myself on a trip. Posie Parker had planned to go and hold a banner outside Twitter to highlight the silencing of women who object to trans ideological assaults on women’s rights. It seemed a decent way of protesting. I certainly needed a break too after a pretty crappy year.

      2. Posie didn’t consult with me when she flipped the trip to Washington and changed the focus – but she assured me “stuff is happening that is going to be amazing and Meghan Murphy is coming down.” I was excited because I admire Murphy. I admire Venice Allan and some of the other women involved. I booked and paid for my own flight. I don’t have much money at the moment. I didn’t realise at that time that the Women of Liberation Front were brought on board. When I was told I researched a bit.

      3. I read about Kara Dansky seeking and gaining $15,000 from Alliance Defending Freedom which is a right wing religious group strongly against abortion. I read their reasons for doing so. WoLF statement

      I raised my hand to object to pairing with them. I was ignored. I raised it again. I was ignored. I thought I must be wrong because everyone else was fine with this.

      4. I kept asking about these right wing links. My questions were either ignored or met with “It’s not a problem for me”. Posie said she is happy to work with anyone and will freely say so. I am not.

      5. On a personal level it is hard to go on a trip with women when you are the only one not doing things. I began to feel isolated from the group for saying I disagreed with the political decisions of other women. I was uncomfortable saying that I was unhappy with things because I was being housed in accommodation in Washington paid for by one of the WoLF women – though I had certainly NOT been told this in advance. Being “paid for” meant I wasn’t comfortable saying ideas were bad. I didn’t join planning sessions and couldn’t really keep up with what was planned. I was left out of all decision making. I deliberately absconded from meetings. At one point when I asked what I would be doing exactly Posie said “just turn up and get on the plane”. I wasn’t speaking at anything. I wasn’t involved in anything that I could see. I thought I might do some bike rides for murdered women while there since I felt a bit superfluous anyway.

      6. When a meeting with people called The Heritage Foundation was scheduled, and the others said they were going, I said I’d go as I felt left out of so much of what was being planned. I don’t know much about American politics and I didn’t know who they were. I investigated them a bit more when Posie said she was surprised I’d want to go. I realised my mistake. I should have looked first. I then said there was no way I could attend a meeting or lunch with them. I called them “misogynist w**kers” because they are. They advocate keeping poor women in marriages they wish to exit in order to solve the social problems those women “cause” government. They say abortion harms women. They say they will help Trump to “drain the swamp”. I don’t care what these people think about trans ideology. That cannot be separated from the things they do and advocate that specifically harm women.

      When I raised my objections to the group I was ignored. No one said anything. It would be funny if it didn’t make me feel like I was going bonkers.

      7. I was in a difficult position and my partner suggested I could go on the trip and just stay out of the right wing meetings and plans I didn’t agree with. I wanted to march and protest and meet other feminist women. However I know that in reality you can’t pick and choose. If there are links with abhorrent right wing groups it is unacceptable to take part in any of it. I knew that I would still be seen as agreeing with anything Posie does if I am on a trip alongside her. I don’t agree with lots of it. She doesn’t ask anyone’s opinion anyway. It is very hard to tell Posie when you don’t agree with her. She stops speaking to you. I finally said I was unable to come on the trip. I stated that the reason is the right wing and/or religious links being formed. I wished the group well with the We Need To Talk style event where Meghan Murphy will speak. I like Venice Allan and the talks she organises are brilliant. I’m sure it will be interesting to watch.

      In response to my withdrawal message to the organising group I was accused of “purity politics” by one of the WoLF women and this was reiterated by Posie. I am angry about that. I don’t really know what it is supposed to mean. I call it feminism actually. Another woman tried to silence me by saying I am “destructive” for tweeting my “divisive” opposition to the Heritage Foundation panel that she will speak on. The irony of being told not to speak on social media about a trip opposing the silencing of women is not lost on me. The trouble is if I happen to spot someone trying to manipulate me I will usually do exactly what I like.

      I might have stayed quiet about all this. If it wasn’t for the Feminist Current podcast that appeared this morning. The one where, amongst other things, Posie Parker discusses Tommy Robinson. She dismisses the work of feminist women who fought to expose grooming gangs and the cover up a few years ago as ineffective. That is a massive insult. She suggests that we didn’t do enough. That is a massive insult. She suggests that Tommy Robinson filled a gap that women left open. That is a massive insult. Tommy Robinson used the merciless sexual exploitation of mainly working class girls to further an anti-islamist agenda. Posie Parker says she needs evidence of this. The word of feminist women who worked against the grooming gangs should be enough. It really should.

      I don’t need a week of action. I am a feminist all year round. I will be sitting down for women…on a bike. I’ll be doing that all year too. I won’t be knowingly riding alongside any gun-toting, woman-hating anti-abortionist racists.

      Lots of women are feminists. This week belongs to them too. I do not belong to Posie Parker. No one owns me.

      Thank you to all the women and girls who worked hard to raise awareness around grooming gangs, including the girls themselves. Thanks to Andrew Norfolk at The Times. None of us needed Tommy Robinson.

      Jean Hatchet.

      I have deleted Mr Goggins’ claims, because I appreciate that it must be unpleasant for you to have him make them, and not because I consider I have any editorial responsibility for them. As I said, I did not consider they damaged your reputation because I did not think people would find them credible.

      I have finally worked out what you meant in that post, and how you can now say you were not on the trip, but I don’t think you have all your tenses quite right. You were only writing about what was being planned. When you wrote “I was being housed with one of the WoLF women” you meant “I was going to be housed”. I have altered my comment. Again, this is because of your persistence, rather than your threats.

      Thank you for publicising the links between Posie Parker and the US far right. Thank you for making a stand by withdrawing from the trip.


  6. Oh and don’t worry about “Jean” suing you, she threatens that all the time. I was to be sued in 2012, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and a few months ago. She’d have to sue in her real name (now in public domain thanks to Yours Truly) plus have her claims examined. The Ched Evans case turned out well and the Metropolitan Police are facing a £4 million compensation settlement.


All comments welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.