Yes that IS (ex-transsexual and post-op SRS regretter) Walt Heyer, in second vid.

Good One Walt! Marci B. got kicked out of Trinidad btw.

Transgender Flipside

October 26, 2011

Texas Man Marries Woman

October 17, 2011

Not much of a headline is it? A man in Texas, once divorced, the father of a 17 year old girl, takes a new wife. Rumor has it he has impregnated her and they are starting a new family. Several news stories have been published about the marriage, but none of them identify the wife by name. But they do mention the husband, a successful IT software executive that markets technology to the defense industry. His name is Meghan Stabler, and he is the only transgender board member of the allegedly largest LGBT organization in the U.S. : The Human Rights Campaign.

Proud Moob Owner Mr. Meghan Stabler

Meghan is a self-described “Alpha Male” with strong genderist beliefs from a young age:

“Simply put, my emotional and psychological gender was not in alignment with my genetic, physiological sex. This is not an acquired condition; rather, it is an intrinsic part, a lifelong aspect of my being, something that I, and many others are born with.”

Some quotes where he describes his sex-role discomfort:

“I could have gotten an Oscar for my acting.  I tried to do that ‘let’s go play golf, have a cigar, and drink a lot of beer’ stuff and hated it. You can’t say it out loud that it is revolting because you are trying to be one of the guys.”

“9/11 happened in 2001. People that I’d known either lost their lives or families were impacted.  It is when I realized that many people didn’t get a chance to say goodbye or to say they truth about their lives.  And I felt because I had been successful in a business career, I wanted to feel comfortable as to who I was and not live a lie.”

““Transitioning is not the same as just saying ‘I’m gay or I’m lesbian’ because people don’t have to out themselves if they don’t want to. When you transition, it a physical transformation that people will absolutely begin to see over a period of time.  The risk/stakes of this game are extremely high.”

 “I had to figure out how could deal with [trans-itioning] but keep the career that I love..”

Mr Stabler joined the HRC board in 2008 to fight for the desires of transgenders: to force the public at large to act as if social sex roles (“Gender”) are legally tied to one’s reproductive sex. In other words, in his view- which he sought to enshrine into law against the wishes of feminists worldwide- sex role stereotypes must be legally enforced by

1.) legally establishing that sex roles, long disputed by women as being artificial and culturally imposed traditions designed to enforce second-class status on the female sex class, are innate. And

2.) That such sex role stereotypes (“gender”) require legal enforcement and protections to prevent erosion by gender-nonbelievers. And

3.) That the public at large must be legally compelled to act as if they believe in the supposedly innate nature of sex-roles, even if they do not believe.

4.) That any stated or acted upon disbelief in sex-roles (gender) by the public at large should be criminalized.

5.) That protections against sex discrimination should be erased and the legal category “sex” be replaced with sex-role, or “Gender”, an internal, invisible, subjective and unquantifiable belief.

6.) That legal sex be replaced with sex-role categories retroactively on historical documents of all types, from public news reports to birth certificates.

7.) That all the above should be moot in cases where a transgender decides that gender isn’t real, but only for them. In other words, that transgenders, unlike any other citizens, have the unique right to skirt the very same now codified and protected legal status of “gender” that they have themselves lobbied for. It’s like a “special snowflake” exemption reserved only for them. It says (paraphrasing): “I am a male who demands to be deemed legally female, and I demand that all females lose all legal rights related to sex, in order to protect my right to have my belief in the immutability of sex-roles legally affirmed.”

In ENDA testimony before the Texas legislature on March 30, 2011 Mr Stabler testified that he was now “labeled as a Lesbian” as so many heterosexual male transgenders claim. But last week he did something no Lesbian in the state of Texas has ever been able to do (besides impregnating women): He married his wife. That’s right! He invoked the special snowflake exemption listed as #7 above. He re-claimed the mantle of his male privilege and retracted his claims of being female and a “Lesbian” and had him a good old-fashioned heterosexual wedding.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2011/10/13/hrc-trans-board-member-marries-as-sex-opposite-of-post-op-gender/

This points out the ridiculousness of not only the “special snowflake exemption”, but the whole premise of his entire Genderist legal platform.

If male “Lesbians” can opt to claim male privilege and heterosexual privilege, what special protections does their Genderism need exactly?

Why do people who have more privileges than any person born female (not only from the moment of birth, but for their entire lives, regardless of any arbitrary and fluctuating  Genderist “trans-ition”) need protections from the legal category of female sex? Why do female rights need to be eliminated, indeed even the legal classification of sex need to be eliminated to support the internal, personal, self-reported, invisible, changeable, unquantifiable sex-role beliefs of Genderists?

Males already have the legal right under title VII to be free from discrimination based on non-compliance with traditional sex-role stereotypes. We don’t need to eliminate the legal category of sex to protect the rights of individual’s private gender  beliefs and fantasies.

[all bolding mine-GM]

Interesting little item out of Colorado over the weekend. News station KRDO Channel 13 reports that a woman was terrified by a man in the women’s restroom of a local shopping mall. She fled the scene and reported the incident to mall security to investigate. She was told that because of the 2008 “Gender Identity Protections” law passed in Colorado, the mall was unable to even question –much less report to police- any males who are trespassing in formerly sex-segregated women’s bathrooms. The reason given was that any males who like hanging out in women’s restrooms “might” claim internal “gender identities”, which presumably could result in mall security being sued for questioning such a man.

From the article:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — One woman says she had a double scare at the Chapel Hills Mall bathroom on Wednesday. It was in the women’s facility near the Children’s Place.

 She says a man was in the bathroom. She rushed to get help from mall security. The man was gone when they got the restroom. The woman also says she was told by security that they couldn’t restrain him unless he was doing something criminal. She says security told her it was because of a 2008 Colorado law.

 Chapel Hills Mall wouldn’t directly confirm or comment on the complaint. They did send this statement on the law and how they follow it to the letter.

 It states: “Chapel Hills Mall and their national security provider comply with all federal, state and local laws including the Public Accommodations Anti-Discrimination law amendments that became effective May 29, 2008. As will all public accommodations, which is defined as any place of business that offers sales or services of any kind to the public, Chapel Hills Mall is required to allow entry and services to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or transgender status. As outlined in the FAQ document produced by the State of Colorado for this law, individuals have the legal right to use gender-segregated services, such as public restrooms, appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth, without being harassed or questioned.

[bolding mine-GM]

Link with video:

http://www.krdo.com/news/29488435/detail.html

Speaking of trans activists claiming this never happens, those who click the link will see not one but two comments from self-proclaimed “woman with a penis”:  trans and anti-female-rights activist Autumn Sandeen, who chides the news organization for reporting something which “isn’t newsworthy”. He then goes so far as to accuse news station KRDO of “manufacturing news”, presumably because reporting news of interest to females makes it “un-newsworthy”. We can see in action the attempt by national trans activists to silence and suppress reportage of such incidents which are caused by “Gender Identity” laws erasing all rights of females to privacy from the male gaze in sex-segregated areas such as restrooms.

Trans activists claim that it is unlikely that predators will lie about an internal “Gender Identity” to gain access to female spaces (even though they make up all sorts of lies to do so). But as this article shows, in areas where Gender Identity laws erase female rights, trespassing males are not even being questioned, due to fears of “Internal Gender Identity”  lawsuits- even though we know without a doubt that predators are targeting women in such spaces.

1959-1989 (pre-internet)

Females

Fish

1989-1994

Genetic Girls

GG’s

Gennies

Born Females

Fish

1994-2004

Bio Females

Fish

2004-2010

Cis Females

Cis Women

Cissies (pronounced “Sissy”)

FAAB (Females Assigned At Birth)

Muggles (Harry Potter term for humans lacking magic)

For Butch Lesbians: Fibbers (Female Identified Butches)

Fish

2010- Present:

Cis Females

Cis Women

FCAAB (Females Coercively Assigned At Birth)

CAFAB (Coercively Assigned Female At Birth)

For Butch Lesbians: MOC  (“mock”) Females (Masculine of Center Females)

Fish

CLICK ON IMAGE

Not enough time in the day to follow all your favorite blogs? Pissed because you missed that great conversation on that seldom-updated blog you forgot to check? Click on RadFemCentral to instantly see which blogs have new posts, and to keep up to date with all your radfem news. Please contact me with URLs of blogs I have missed. All will be included equally.

As some of you know, I’ve been talking for months about an aggregate RSS feed for RadFem Bloggers. I finally got one started! But I need Your Help. I know I’m missing lots of sites. Please let me know which ones I’m missing, even if they are new sites, or sites which haven’t been updated in ages (that way if they DO update, we will all know about it because they will go to the top of the list). In weeks to come RadFem Central will grow in size and scope. And I may even pretty it up a bit at some point. I hope this will be a useful tool for all of us in the community to keep in touch, and support your overworked and under unpaid blogging sisters.

Also, if for any reason someone wants to be removed from the site, please let me know.

In Sisterhood,

GallusMag

P.S. Inclusion on RadFem Central does not mean the bloggers featured agree with the views expressed by other bloggers, or that I agree with all the views of a blog, or even that the site is purely “Radical Feminist”, rather that the sites are female owned and of interest to, and/or supportive of, some Radical Feminist ideals, etc etc disclaimer disclaimer blah blah blah. :)

*If anyone wants to use this little picture on the sidebar of their blog help yourself

Researchers use new strategy to bypass ethical and legal restrictions on female bodies.

This week the journal Nature [subscription only] published results of a cloning experiment conducted by the New York Stem Cell Foundation that succeeded in growing stem cells to the blastocyst phase inside an egg that still contained the donor’s existing nucleus. Another breakthrough for cloning and stem-cell research. But what is most groundbreaking of all, at least for females and those who care about us, is the fact that researchers bypassed medical ethics, the donor guidelines of the National Academy of Sciences, and the laws in some US States, and countries including Canada, Britain, France, Australia, Belgium, Italy and China to do so. And men are applauding.

Human stem cell and cloning researchers need eggs. Human eggs. Which only female humans produce, and which can only be accessed by subjecting women to invasive surgical “harvesting” procedures which are risky, and even deadly. Researchers have been successful in growing any number of things in human eggs. But they cannot create the eggs. In order to obtain human eggs, female donors must undergo a four to six week medical screening and drug and  hormone injection treatment designed to hyperstimulate her ovaries into producing more than the one egg typically produced by normal ovulation.

(Control Ovarian Hyperstimulation (COH)

COH is done using different protocols. The most common one is a long GnRH-Agonist (Lupron) protocol where the secretion of gonadotropin hormones is suppressed in order to prevent premature ovulation. Once optimal suppression is achieved, the next step is the recruitment of multiple follicles by daily injections of gonadotropins. Ultrasound imaging and hormone assessments are used to monitor follicular development. When the lead follicles have reached the appropriate size, the final maturation of eggs is done by HCG administration. Egg retrieval is scheduled 34-36 hours after HCG injection.)

At the end of this process an ultrasound guided needle is used to puncture the vagina, abdominal wall or bladder to gain access to each ovary, where the eggs are aspirated into the needle while the woman is under intravenous sedation or local anaesthetic. Prophylactic antibiotics are also given.

Since the ovaries are movable and not fixed in place and the tissues are very soft, a special extremely sharp needle is used, which increases the chance of damage to surrounding tissues, including bowel perforation, ureter perforation, blood vessel perforation with resulting abdominal bleeding (The incidence of serious hemoperitoneum (free blood in the pelvis or abdomen) in the two large reports of transvaginal ultrasound guided egg aspirations is 0.6% (about 1 in 200) with half of these treated with laparoscopy and the remainder requiring a laparotomy.)

Some of the risks and side effects of this procedure:

 “The drugs used to hyperstimulate the ovaries also have negative effects, most notably a condition called Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS). Serious cases of this syndrome involve the development of cysts and enlargement of the ovaries, along with massive fluid build-up in the body. As noted in an article in Human Reproduction Update, “the reported prevalence of the severe form of OHSS is small, ranging from .05 to 5% [of women undergoing gonadotropin regimens]. Nevertheless, as this is an iatrogenic [medically induced] complication of a non-vital treatment with a potentially fatal outcome, the syndrome remains a serious problem for specialists dealing with infertility.”[1]

Also, as noted by Dr. Suzanne Parisian, a former Chief Medical Officer at the FDA, “OHSS carries an increased risk of clotting disorders, kidney damage, and ovarian twisting. Ovarian stimulation in general has been associated with serious life threatening pulmonary conditions in FDA trials including thromboembolic events, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary infarction, cerebral vascular accident (stroke) and arterial occlusion with loss of a limb and death.”[2] One Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts cited the risks as including “high blood pressure; fluid accumulation in the limbs; formation of blood clots which potentially could be dislodged from the involved vein or artery causing damage to vital organs such as lungs, heart or brain; intestinal problems such as decreased appetite, constipation; nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty in swallowing; intestinal bleeding, intestinal ulcers and polyps; thyroid enlargement; breast tenderness; hot flashes; bone, muscle and joint pain; anxiety; depression; blurred vision; mood swings; nervousness; numbness; taste changes; memory problems; lightheadedness; blackouts; and headaches.” [3]


 

““There’s no health-outcome data collected by anybody other than some voluntary reporting, and there’s no postmarket testing on how these drugs are being used,” said Susan Berke Fogel, co-founder of the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, a project of the Public Health Institute in Oakland, Calif.”

 

Due to the invasiveness and risk of human egg harvesting, laws have been passed in many forward-thinking countries and states to prevent a class of impoverished females being economically exploited by researchers who would subject them to medically invasive and sometimes deadly surgical procedures. The same reasoning behind laws which prevent humans from undergoing other invasive medical procedures for profit. Organ donation, for example is considered medically unethical and illegal when the donor is paid, because such payment is considered economically coercive and targets poor people for exploitation in a manner that is considered inhumane. But unlike organ donation, the only humans effected by egg harvesting are female humans. And Wednesday’s published research shows that not only were the worldwide prohibitions against high-risk medical donation bypassed but the precedent is being applauded by male scientists and researchers.

From the LaTimes :

 “Another notable thing about the research, which was published in the journal Nature: The team paid the women who provided the eggs used in the study, a practice that has been forbidden by ethical guidelines from scientific organizations around the world.  Some ethicists have argued that paying women for their eggs might create an exploitative trade. But in this case, it may be the reason why the researchers were able to collect enough healthy eggs (they used 270 in all) to get their historic result.

 Teams have “tried to recruit donors on altruistic grounds and failed,” said New York Stem Cell Foundation researcher and study co-leader Dieter Egli, during a news conference on Tuesday.  “That’s why we knew it was not the way to go in New York.”

 Dr. Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher with Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., told The Times that in his experience, it can take a year to get one donor, and perhaps five to 10 eggs, lined up.  

 “One year we put out an ad.  The problem was, we got these patients, they’d say sure, and then they’d see the poster down the hall about getting paid [to donate eggs] for reproduction,” he said.  “It’s hard to get volunteers.  At best you’ll get a handful of eggs.”

 To avoid exerting undue influence on the donors, the New York team paid them $8,000 for the time and burden of donation (which does pose risks), then allowed them to decide later if they wanted their eggs to be used for research or for reproduction. That way, the conversation about payment was already over before any talk about scientific research began.

 In an article that accompanied the New York study in Nature, medical ethicist Jan Helge Solbakk of the University of Oslo praised the researchers for their approach.  “The authors’ approach represents the first step towards acknowledging women as genuine participants — co-producers even — in the generation of new knowledge,” he wrote.

[embolding mine-GM]

Co-producers even- in the generation of new knowlege”. Riggght. When no women agree to “partnering” with researchers unless they are paid $8,000, that is not a “partnership”. It is economic exploitation and unethical medical experimentation targeting the most vulnerable humans: impoverished females.

If this precedent is not challenged, open-season on economically deprived females by unethical medical researchers will become every day, including females who are killed by researchers collecting eggs. Researchers claim that at least 100 human eggs are required for each single stem cell line. That means that for every potential person treated with stem cells, TEN women must undergo this egg harvesting procedure. According to a press release jointly issued by The Center For Genetics and Society, The Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, Our Bodies Ourselves, and The Alliance for Humane Biotechnology, the legal limits on the number of eggs were also ignored:

“The authors of the Nature report note that one of the women from whom they obtained eggs for their work produced 26 eggs. Some fertility doctors warn that no more than 10–15 eggs should be extracted from a woman’s ovaries in a single cycle, because “when the egg number exceeds 20, the risk of OHSS [ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome] becomes high.”[i]

The authors claimed to have followed the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), but they did not. For example, they offered a sum of money significantly higher than the ASRM guidelines allow. Nor did they follow the recommendations of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) that “the treating physician or infertility clinician should not also be the investigator who is proposing to perform research on the donated materials.”

Not only that, but the joint press release states that the women were put at risk and subjected to dangerous invasive surgical procedures for research that was totally hypothetical and had no supportive data – it was just a crap shoot:

“The authors speculate that with enough eggs, they might be able to produce genome-specific stem cells. However, they offer no discussion of any exploratory research in animal models. For example, what have been the findings, if any, of animal research seeking to identify the oocyte nuclear factor that they hypothesize?

“We cannot now justify the solicitation of young women to provide eggs for this kind of speculative research,” says Diane Beeson of the Alliance for Humane Biotechnology.”

 “Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Associate Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society, says:

“This new form of research cloning, like the old one, still represents a highly speculative approach to stem cell research. We should not put the health of young women at risk, especially to get raw materials for such exploratory investigations.”

It’s the Wild Wild West in cloning research. And female bodies are the great frontier.

Women’s lives and health are just a necessary cost.

$8,000 each, to be precise.


 

 

From the LATimes:

“These days, Richards does not think transsexual athletes should be allowed to compete professionally. “I don’t think it’s a level playing field, even though the International Olympic Committee, in its utter wisdom, has declared that it is,” she explained.”

 

 

Well this week’s contest was fairly slim pickins; seems many previous contestants have been banned from competition for entering too frequently. Don’t get me wrong, there were still quite a few stand-out submissions. But this one was the easy winner in the judging categories of: Randomness, Woman-Hating, Extreme Verbosity, Reversals, ‘Splaining, Attention Seeking, and Cry For Help.

Hits all the marks easily, with extra points accorded for: Drama and Paranoia.

Why, oh why does Suzan of Women Born Transsexual leave crazy-ass rants on my blog??? To show his dedication! He is one of my biggest fans, and thereby feels compelled to inflict share his feeeeewings on with me, whether I’d like to hear them or not. He’s trolled, he’s reverse-trolled, and he’s smeared worn his heart on my his sleeve. So Suzan, you WIN! This trophy also entitles you to a One Year Complete Ban! You deserve it- this is your moment!

And now, with no further doo…. The Winning Entry:

[EDIT to ADD: WARNING- EXTREME FEMALE-HATRED EXPRESSED IN THIS POST AND THREAD]

Read the rest of this entry »

(Click on image)

Put any related comments over there, not here- thanks. ;)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 550 other followers