August 31, 2012
2012 Submission to the UN Commission on the Status of Women: The Legal Category of Sex and Understanding the Status of Women
August 28, 2012
Elizabeth Hungerford follows up last year’s widely debated 2011 Submission to the UN Commission on the Status of Women with this year’s version: brilliant and compelling.
“This communication represents a fundamental shift in the framing of feminist concerns about the legal codification of “gender identity.” It refocuses attention on the experiential realities of being born female by demanding that sex be prioritized as independently significant to both understanding and improving the status of women.”
An important announcement follows the text.
July 26, 2012
CSW Communications Procedure
Human Rights Section
220 East 42nd Street, 17th floor
New York, NY 10017
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women’s call for communications dated June 26, 2012 [i] regarding allegations of human rights violations affecting the status of women, I am writing in follow-up to the collaborative communication I submitted last year in association with Cathy Brennan, Esq. (see attached). At that time, we brought to your attention our growing concerns about American “gender identity” legislation and the threat it presents to the preservation of female sex-segregated spaces as a consequence of deliberately vague and overbroad definitions that frame one’s internally felt “gender identity” as a substitute for legal “sex” without any duration, medical documentation, improper purpose prohibition, or other requirements.
I do not wish to dismiss the feelings or experiences of trans* individuals who may sincerely identify with the mythology of femininity (or masculinity). I sympathize with their human pain and firmly believe that everyone has a right to express their “gender” by any and all means possible without social punishment. I agree that being born into a male body does not naturally lead one to act or feel masculine; and that being born into a female body does not naturally lead one to act or feel feminine. In fact, if we were to accept such an antiquated theory of gender essentialism, it would logically require us to conclude that male violence [ii] has a biological component, implicitly justifying the behavior and rendering it inevitable. I do not believe this. Feminists do not believe this.
This year, my singular appeal to the Commission on the Status of Women is that all future policy directly or indirectly affecting sex does not, under any circumstances, confuse or replace physical sex with ambiguous notions of self-defined “gender” or “gender identity.” Particularly in the context of formal decrees, the words sex and gender must not be used interchangeably. This is because it is inaccurate, [iii] but more importantly, because it limits the ability of women to seek protection for the full range of human rights violations that we face as a result of our sex from birth. “Gender identity” laws, including the UK’s Gender Recognition Act of 2004,iv create a legal understanding of sex that reinforces normative and strictly oppositional stereotypes of sex-based appearance and behavior. This is regressive, not progressive. The analysis below will illuminate why maintaining a strong conceptual distinction between sex and gender is critical to understanding the status of women and, therefore, to the protection of all women’s human right to be free from stereotypical attitudes towards the role and responsibilities of women.
Women’s oppression can be understood as operating on at least two separate axes. The first is reproductive exploitation of female bodies. The systemic nature of this sex-based abuse is both achieved by and evidenced through widespread practices such as religiously mandated heterosexuality, arranged marital ownership of women by men and enforced by violence, and rape as a weapon of war (including ethnic cleansing). These represent the specific institutionalized mechanisms by which female bodies are sexually colonized and exploited by male bodies. The end result is that women, children, and human reproduction generally, have been traditionally controlled by adult men and adult male interests.
The basic physical nature of sexual dimorphism, characteristic of all mammalian reproduction, is inevitable. It is imminently reasonable to assume that sexed bodies will continue to exist as long as humans do. No amount of legislation is going to change that. Feminism’s central point is that the institutionalized exploitation of sexual dimorphism for the purpose of creating and maintaining patriarchy (i.e., male domination of females) is not inevitable. Addressing and eliminating human rights violations against women therefore requires us to acknowledge that the existential reality of sex-and-reproduction is fundamental to understanding the social status of women–past, present, and future.
My objection to “gender identity” is that where legal definitions of sex are reducible to the subjectively felt “gender identities” of trans* people, the connection between sexualized violence and reproductive exploitation of female bodies becomes invisible. The unintended consequence is that it also becomes impossible for women to specifically address this aspect of our oppression on an institutional level. [v] Women’s attempts to discuss state control of female reproductive issues are considered “cissexist” and “transphobic” by some members of the trans* community.[vi] Yet in order for the full scope of human rights violations against women to be rectified, we cannot ignore the ways in which reproductive exploitation of females has been leveraged to sustain patriarchy. The inevitability of physical sex and reproductive dimorphism must be understood as legally relevant in its own right and separate from any notion of a subjective “gender identity.”
The second axis on which women’s oppression operates is via stereotypical attitudes towards the role and responsibilities of women. Stereotyping is the act of making an assumption about an individual based on her membership in a specific group, which then serves as moral justification for the enforcement of sex-based social roles that limit women’s autonomy and right to self determination. These heteronormative social roles are inherently unequal because they prescribe male control of the public sphere–including governmental participation and ownership of all public spaces– while simultaneously relegating females to the unpaid private sphere where women are responsible for virtually everything, but are actually in control of almost nothing. Largely shocking to many modern Western minds, even human rights champion Gandhi was once convinced that he, as a man and as a husband, was morally entitled to beat his wife.[vii]
To quote feminist Gloria Steinem:
…Olof Palme, the great former prime minister of Sweden,  said that gender roles are the deepest cause of violence on earth, and it’s up to governments to humanize them. Gender roles may give us our first idea that it’s okay for one group to eat and the other to cook, one to talk and the other to listen, one to order and the other to obey, one to be subject and one as object. The most shared characteristic of original societies in which violence was only for self-defense, not armies — and of the most egalitarian societies now — is that gender roles are fluid and not polarized.[viii]
In last year’s communication, Brennan and I explained how “gender identity” laws reify these gender roles by recasting them as freely chosen “identities” magically detached from all social and historical contexts, rather than recognizing that such gender roles are both arbitrary and harmful, especially to female-born humans:
…definitions of “gender identity” that suggest or codify into law that there are ways of expressing one’s self (or behaviors or appearances) “consistent or congruent with biological sex” present a risk to females, as such definitions codify the notion of stereotypes based on sex into law. Traits stereotypically assigned to females – such as care-taking, emotionalism, and weakness – have served as sufficient legal justification for women’s exclusion from employment, participation in government, and many other critical social functions. Archaic stereotypes are directly responsible for the denial of female credibility and intellectual authority, in addition to causing the historical marginalization of females, lower social status vis-à-vis males, and lack of power to engage equally with males. Even where law has evolved to formally prohibit sex-stereotyping; women continue to suffer from the lingering effects of sexist ideologies about female inferiority. So although we support every individual’s right to freely express their gender identity, it is absolutely critical that law not confuse “feminine expression” with [sex].
The moment a female human is born, the hegemony of sex-based stereotypes are attached to her and coercively direct the social trajectory of her life. Her possibilities are severely restricted; there is no conscious beginning and no voluntary end to this sex-based social tracking for most women in the world. Being female, and therefore being subject to a lifetime’s worth of female-based sexual exploitation and stereotyping, is an immutable condition for all but a few self-appointed trans* men who are able to successfully pass as the opposite sex. For the vast majority of the world’s women, however, the demands of the female gender role are not cause for celebration. We did not consent to these stereotypes. We did not ask to be treated as second class citizens; we have no choice. It is not our “gender identity” to embrace stereotypes about the role and responsibilities of women. This is a second significant way in which framing “gender identity” as a substitute for legal sex, by failing to capture the mechanics of female oppression, invisibilizes the experiential reality of being born into a female body and makes it more difficult for women to address the complexity of human rights violations against us as a class.
People who bravely defy sex-based stereotypes remind us that being born into a male body does not naturally lead one to act or feel masculine and that being born into a female body does not naturally lead one to act or feel feminine. These people, whether they apply the trans* label to themselves or not, deserve specialized legal protection from harassment and discrimination. But this protection should be effectuated as a legal prohibition against the enforcement of gender roles and related stereotyping. Redefining “sex” as an amalgamation of pre-existing stereotypical characteristics that we currently associate with females or “women ”– ostensibly as a means of protecting trans* people– is harmful to the rest of the world’s women. Compliance with feminine stereotypes and gender roles is not what constitutes being a woman. “Gender identity” laws that “…codify the notion that there are traits, manners of expression, or modes of appearance that are inconsistent or consistent with one’s biological sex“[ix] is a violation of the human rights of women.
The Commission on the Status of Women should not reinforce stereotypical attitudes towards the role and responsibilities of women by confusing sex with “gender” or “gender identity” in any future policies or formal communications. “Gender identity” misrepresents the status of women as being solely about internal identification with sex-based stereotypes and gender roles, thereby making it more difficult for females to address the full range of human rights violations that we face as a result of our sex—from cradle to grave.
Thank you for your time. Please contact me with any questions.[x]
Elizabeth R. Hungerford
[ii] See Lauren Wolfe and Gloria Steinem’s article published February 24, 2012 in the Guardian: Sexual violence against women is the result of the cult of masculinity. Accessed July 23, 2012.
[iii] See Journal of Applied Physiology September 1, 2005 vol. 99 no. 3 785-787. Accessed July 25, 2012:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/3/785. See also International Journal for Equity in Health 2009, 8:14;
describing sex differences in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. Accessed July 25, 2012: http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/8/1/14.
[vii] See Gandhi the Man, a biography of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi written by Eknath Easwaran. The book was originally published in the US in 1973.
[viii] Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/news/31040430_1_domestic-violence-womenprisoners-war#ixzz21TdgpL16. See also: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2012/steinem-awakens-young-and-oldencouraging-%E2%80%98outrageous-acts%E2%80%99
[ix] See previous communication to the UN signed by myself and Cathy Brennan, Esq., attached below.
DOWNLOAD PDF FILE BY CLICKING HERE.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Sex Not Gender Workgroup forming
GenderTrender is pleased to announce that Elizabeth Hungerford–attorney, lesbian feminist, and author of the Sex Not Gender letters to the UN Commission on Women–is forming a Sex Not Gender Workgroup for women (and men) who support the importance of biological sex and the removal of gender and related stereotyping language from the social, political, and legal spheres.
The group will highlight current events that impact the legal and social realities of sex; provide commentary and analysis regarding how and why sex matters; and identify institutional targets for potential reform actions.
August 25, 2012
I’m posting this thread from May 2011 because I think it would be useful for us all to reflect on where we have been, and where we are going. I’d like to express my gratitude and appreciation for all the women who have worked so hard and accomplished so much over the past year. All comments are closed to this post. But do stay tuned for an important post and announcement in the coming days. -GM
REDACTEDMay 3 at 9:38am Reply • Report
Ursula PunkMay 3 at 10:38am Reply • Report
I’m so glad you’re looking at this legislation. As a group, I think we should do more of this.
Well, it looks like some of the language has already been removed. YAY!
“GENDER IDENTITY” MEANS A GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY OR APPEARANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.
Ok, I think that VISIBILIZING the masc/fem constructs that are being “protected” here is VERY important. You can’t say
a “goob identity” means a goob RELATED identity or appearance.
WHAT IS A GOOB?? Duh. And that’s what I mean by referencing masc/fem. THAT’S what this is about– disembodying masc/fem expression from sexual organs, then codifying it as SACRED.
At this point, any person can appropriate any aspect of masculinity or femininity and demand legal PROTECTION.
REDACTEDMay 3 at 11:05am Reply • Report
“the worst part is, nobody in the community knows who I am anymore, so when I speak my mind and they yell at me, they just say, you don’t know, you’re cis you couldn’t possibly know.
but I know. I know too much and I wish I didn’t.
“I’ve spent the last couple of years obsessing over the idea of medically transitioning. For the past few months I’ve spent more and more time analyzing why I felt those things, and I’ve spent a hell of lot less time absolutely hating myself. It’s still a struggle because I’m not completely comfortable with my body, but at least I’m not lying to myself about feeling like a man anymore.
“They always say “there’s somebody out there for everybody!’
I have a hard time believing it. At least when I was calling myself a lesbian in the trans community there was this expectation that you could be a bit different, socially speaking. Now, I dunno. I realize now that I’m a heterosexual male. Straight women always want me to be more masculine, more like a real man. It’s not going to happen.
I don’t know, this maybe isn’t all that coherent, it’s just irrational thoughts maybe.
“There’s something brutally funny about, hormonally speaking at least, basically being on my third puberty. In all seriousness though, I need my natural hormone production to level out again. Mid twenties is just too damn old for this shit.
SUPPORT THIS BLOG:
August 23, 2012
August 23, 2012
Is adherence to sex-role stereotypes a faith-based religion? Some transgenders say yes, and worthy of religious property tax exemption. After a multi-year legal battle, the NY State Supreme Court has declined to authorize property tax exemption for the IRS registered 501©(3) non-profit Transsexual Church “The Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, Inc”, formerly “Gallae Central House Inc”.
The Catskills transsexual castration cult was founded by longtime transgender activist Cathryn Platine, a man who also uses the public monikers Catkisser, RadicalBitch, and “Reverend Mother Battakes: Transsexual Pagan Priestess: Battakes of the Maetreum of Cybele”. [hahaha I love that-GM] Although granted tax exempt status from the federal government for his transsexual church, Greene County NY officials declined to grant property tax exemption for the Reverend Mother’s residence after a prolonged legal battle, even though rites to the goddess Cybele are held there.
Why the goddess Cybele? The pagan cult of Cybele was, uniquely, a cult of castrated males. Cybele had a priesthood of castrated male eunuchs called the “Galli” that were referred to as “priestesses”, and Cybele also had a castrated male consort named Attis, who was worshipped. It’s the original pagan Pretendbian cult!
From “Maarten J. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis: the myth and the cult, translated by A. M. H. Lemmers, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977: “The Galli castrated themselves during an ecstatic celebration called the Dies sanguinis, or “Day of Blood”, which took place on March 24. At the same time they put on women’s costume, mostly yellow in colour, and a sort of turban, together with pendants and ear-rings. They also wore their hair long, and bleached, and wore heavy make-up. They wandered around with followers, begging for charity, in return for which they were prepared to tell fortunes. On the day of mourning for Attis they ran around wildly and dishevelled. They performed dances to the music of pipes and tambourines, and, in an ecstasy, flogged themselves until they bled.”
According to Platine : “Our theology starts from the simplest basis: That the Divine Feminine principle is the basis of the universe. That all of us, all that we encounter is Her in the aggregate. We are all the Great Mother learning about Herself. From this simple beginning springs our organizational models, our rituals, the principles of what we call Wholistic Feminism, our mission of charitable outreach and indeed the way we, as Cybelines, live our lives. We are sometimes called the “scholarly Cybelines” because we have invested many years of strict historical research in order to embrace the essence of what proved to be literally the oldest surviving religion in the world.”
Platine alleged that his property, the three story historic formal Central House Inn on three acres of property located on heavily traveled route 23a was a shrine to the goddess Cybelle. The feds disagreed, and declined tax exempt property status, finding that the locale was primarily a residence for Platine and company.
From the Watershed Post: “[T]he primary and predominant use of the property was to provide cooperative housing for a small group of individuals, with the religious and charitable uses of the property merely incidental to this residential use,” [Judge] Platkin wrote.
The judge wrote that the property’s temple area, where regular rituals were held, made up only a small part of the entire parcel. He wrote that the rest of the 12-room former inn is used as living quarters for the religion’s members, only three of whom live there full-time.”
In one hilarious exchange in a 2010 article in the local Greene County Daily Mail Platine alleges that local authorities simply fail to recognize the religious underpinnings of most of the home’s décor:
“According to Platine, a tour of the property by town officials, including Vincelette, yielded, to them, little sign of religious iconography.
Though to an unfamiliar vision, and without knowledge of their significance, Platine said, the Cybelline themes and traditional pagan symbols abounding throughout the hotel property may seem obscure.
“Here is a Minoan lily,” Platine said as she pointed to an inconspicuous hand-painted blue and yellow flower on the kitchen’s wooden bar.”
“[Judge] Platkin also dismissed the Matreum’s argument that it deserved a tax exemption on non-religious grounds because it offers free emergency housing to women and transgendered women. The house’s use as an emergency shelter is too “limited and infrequent” to qualify on charitable grounds, the judge wrote.”
Playing “Little Edie” to Platine’s “Big Edie” at the decaying Catskills transgender Grey Gardens inn (which the NewYork Times gently described as “increasingly decrepit”) is the interesting and historically significant Caillean McMahon.
Cai is apparently a psychiatrist and is the purported author behind prolific fake internet lesbian (and wealthy jet-setting international human rights attorney and captain of the Spanish armada, haha!) sock-puppet “Maureen Hennessey”. He was also the plaintiff [Tronetti v. Healthnet Lakeshore Hosp 2003] in what was arguably one of the most important legal cases in the modern transgender movement, a case whose ruling will long outlive the noxious anti-female “gender identity” classification that is now being challenged by feminist and women’s rights legal experts. Like the recent Vandizer Elizabeth Glenn 11th Circuit ruling widely celebrated as historic in the LGBT movement for affirming the rights to free gender expression under existing title VII sex-based equality protections (as opposed to codifying and enshrining anti-female sex-role stereotypes into law as “gender identity” does), Tronetti/McMahon successfully won his 2003 second circuit NY case which explicitly ruled that transgenders are protected under Title VII on the basis of sex , not gender discrimination.
Cai and his daughter also maintain a telegraph museum with working telegraph on the grounds of Platine’s gender church, where Cai produces painstakingly accurate reproductions of historical documents related to telegraphy and commuter trains.
If I was a budding documentary filmmaker- well actually I’d be filming heterosexual male transvestic lesbophobe MRAs attacking lesbians at Dyke Marches. But my second choice would be Grey Gardens 2013 at the decaying manse of the Church of the Castrated Men. Any takers? Not only would they make fascinating subject for a cult documentary but perhaps with the increased visibility Platine and company could charge admission to the estate and run things like a proper roadside attraction, amusing and mystifying weary Catskills “seekers” looking for a respite from their spiritual touristing at any of the neighboring “Eat Pray Love” cult compounds. There is simply no excuse that someone as commitedly whackadoodle as Cathryn Plantine and company should have to struggle for nickels when the market for crackpottery has never been stronger.
Seriously what is wrong with the transgender community that they will chip-in thousands of dollars to disgusting predators and pornmongers like Tobi Hill-Meyers and yet leave insane fabulists like The Reverend Mother WhateverTheFuck Platine to go to dust trying to maintain a weird decrepit inn housing a stupid religiousy thing that never hurt anyone [as far as we yet know, the backyard diggings have not yet begun-GM]? Priorities, people.
All you autogynephillic IT magnates and coders, put aside the fake lesbian porn for long enough to extract a few dollars from your facial feminization savings account and send a few bucks to Platine. Spend well, spend large, and support a truly unique example of Americana and religious kookassery.
You can read the court decision here, although I can’t imagine why you’d want to:
August 17, 2012
This is a REPOST of a blog entry from THIS blog: http://ataulfomangos.tumblr.com/
*THIS IS A GENDERIST/TRANS SITE THAT IS GENDER-CRITICAL*
SO BLESSED TO BE XX
I’ve seen the argument that females have privilege over males in trans* politics. That due to political positionality, trans men will invariably be privileged over trans women.
If you’re talking about people that blend seamlessly with people who aren’t trans, we can talk conditionally. However, most of the trans men I know will never know the male privilege that their trans sisters knew growing up, and here’s why. Their bodies will never conform to the expectations of society. Once their history is known (even within trans circles), it’s all misogyny from there.
Take this “female privilege” argument. I was on T. Some of my closest friends are still on T. Yet, every doctor’s appointment was an exercise in being called hysterical. Our menstrual and pelvic pain are “psychosomatic” as opposed to terrifically unusual and perhaps warranting investigation. Our visits for testosterone aren’t prefaced with discussions about cervical and endometrial cancer risks. Why? Because we have vaginas, and we don’t matter shit to the medical institution. Once they have our copays, they could care less what happens after the fact.
Let’s even look at trans politics for a minute, shall we? Trans women say that trans men should shut up in political circles. That their position is privileged and that mere identification alone (barring whether they are transitioning or even fucking blend) somehow lands them in some upper echelon of society. This is patently ridiculous, and is indicative of a politics that devalues the opinions and lived experiences of female-bodied people. This is just another way to make female-bodied people feel bad about having a fucking opinion. It is another silencing tactic, pure and simple.
On an interpersonal level, I and other people with transmasculine experience have been talked over countless times in political discussions with our so-called sisters. We’ve had our opinions diminished. If the conversation gets especially nasty, our sisters usually feel it relevant and polite to comment upon our bodies — that they wished they had X or Y feature of yours, and isn’t it all just so unfair? Surely, you get it.
In other words, another plea to our socialized emotional responses.
While I’m sure a lot of the genderqueer/gender-variant/gender non-conforming boom has a lot to do with escapism from rigid gender roles, I cannot help but wonder if it is also born out of a desperate desire to have some form of political leverage in an ever increasingly male-made political landscape. If you aren’t in a female-only space, it is nearly impossible to get a word in as a female in a feminist arena in 2012.
I’m not privileged to be female. The trans men in my life are not either. Not when they, like me, have to worry about somebody kicking in a bathroom door and taking advantage of their physiology. They’re just that much closer to people who typically commit such heinous crimes. Listen to your brothers. You might learn a lot from them.
This particular brand of horseshit leaks into other areas of feminist thought, and is a clownish reversal of the things radical feminism calls for. Oppression and social dynamics cannot be boiled down to a mere equation. Transfeminists who claim that trans peoples’ power balances are somehow reversed in transition are again losing the greater picture by completely eradicating the category of sex from both lived experience and political analysis.
[Okeefe image added by me- GM]
August 17, 2012
Today The Advocate published – uncritically- a glowing excerpt from a book written by a woman who diagnosed her daughter as transgender at the age of eighteen months. The author and parent, Tracie Stratton, describes being disturbed by her tiny infants lack of conformity to socially proscribed sexist feminine gender behaviors for infants.
She diagnosed her daughter as “boyish” and “different” at one year of age.
Hey guess what folks. People should not be examining one year olds for sex role compliance. No matter your politics, your religion, your horrific sexism, your munchausen’s syndrome by proxy, no one should be monitoring a one year old child for sex-role compliance.
But Stratton did. So much though that she claims that before two years of age her daughter was already parotting back to mom: “Me a boy, mama”.
“By eighteen months I knew that this child, my fourth daughter, was different from the first three. In particular, she was very boyish, a characteristic which I had never thought about much before.” Stratton says.
Hey guess what folks. Eighteen month olds do not even know what that means. HUGE red flags. Stratton claims that she “consulted with her pediatrician” about her infant daughter’s troubling “boyishness”. She does not report the result of that consultation. But the fact that she reports it occurred insinuates the deep, profound extent of her parental malaise with her infants non-compliance to infant sex-roles. WHAT? Infant sex-roles?!?! HUGE red flags. One can only speculate that the pediatrician must have been either horrified -or quickly disregarded such concerns as the random mutterings of a possibly somewhat quirky parent. Since Stratton declines to report the outcome of her infant sex-role stereotype “consultation” we can only guess. Whatever the outcome, Stratton remained deeply disturbed about her child at home for two more years before “reconsulting” her physician about her perception that her child was failing at performing toddler femininity. This time she requested a psychiatric intervention to “fix” her daughter’s failure to perform femininity at the level mom required.
It isn’t as unusual as feminists might wish for a parent who is committed to strict sex-role fundamentalism to become disturbed when they perceive their infant child to resist the gender roles the caregiver has tried to inculcate in them. We even saw a toddler in recent years get beaten to death for not complying with socially mandated toddler sex-role behavior.
Stratton did not beat her child to death, but she was extremely disturbed by her infants “gender behavior”, and attempted to correct the infant. After three years the child had (according to the author) already been taught that she was “doing something wrong”. Stratton was determined to correct this “wrongness” in pediatric sex-role behavior and requested and received a psychiatric consult for her child at the age of five.
Stratton does not go into depth about the psychiatric process she subjected her daughter to except to state that the psychiatrist did not see any problem and encouraged mom to let the child be- even if the child turned out to be a dreaded lesbian. Stratton’s reporting of this is interesting. She quotes the psychiatrist “who came with great credentials and was the head of the pediatric psych association here in Oregon” as stating “For God’s sake, just let her be a lesbian.” Fear of lesbianism was clearly on the consult agenda. Stratton found this offensive because for unstated reasons she rejects all of the rigorous recorded scientific evidence that lesbian and gay children tend to be less compliant with sex-role programming at an early age. Perhaps, as seems most likely, she just chaffed at the idea that her daughter was non-compliant and also had a higher than average chance of maturing into a flamingly lesbian adult.
After Stratton’s initial profound distress at her one year old infant’s lack of femininity, and multiple pediatric and psychiatric consultations that all assured her that her daughter was healthy and well, Stratton continued to be so disturbed by her daughter’s perceived “difference” that she rejected all professional advice and her malaise continued to fester on the child, day by day. “I was upset that there was so little help for children like mine, nor did I know of any other children like mine.”
Undaunted in her disregard of the advice of multiple highly regarded pediatric medical and psychiatric professionals (advice to just leave her daughter alone) Stratton states:
‘I then went to an endocrinologist, who drew some blood from Izzy for lab work. When discussing the results, we found that my child had been making both sets of hormones, estrogen and testosterone, in equal parts. We learned that in a child so young, however, hormones can ebb and flow, and that this was not conclusive to anything. So what could we think?”
Oh noez! Still not something “wrong” with her child!
Finally (!) she “consulted the Internet and found a gender therapist, who in turn recommended a child specialist. This specialist, [“super kink/queer friendly”] Cat Pivetti, has been and continues to be our lifesaver, helping us navigate life with an intersexed, transgender child.”
Some of the horror:
“So, I started letting Izzy be a boy at home, wearing what- ever clothes he wanted, and playing with whatever toys he chose. Most of these things had previously been removed from our home after some really bad advice from ill-informed “experts.” We had been trying for a while to have everything be “female” around the house, and we even created a special “girls’ club.””
It’s so incredibly sick that anyone would do this to a child. Just let the kid do what she wants! Just leave her alone! How hard is that???
“One day my husband, Izzy’s stepdad Buzz, was having a hard time getting Izzy ready for school. He decided to just let Izzy wear the boys’ shirt with the car on it that day. His message on my phone went something like, “Honey don’t be mad, I know we said not to let Izzy wear boys’ clothes out of the house, but I had to get the kid to school.”
WHY are cars things for sperm producing humans???? WHAT?
Hai. Guess what folks. Cars are not only for people born with testicles and penis! Females like cars TOO! And fluctuating testosterone levels in female children is NOT an intersex condition! If Stratton’s child had an actual intersex condition, she, or her endocrinologist would have named it, instead of stating that things were normal and fine and a-okay! Hello? AND childhood hormonal imbalances (which Stratton’s child apparently does NOT have) are easily correctable, and such conditions have NAMES and demonstrable PATHOLOGIES and are represented in MEDICAL LITERATURE! This child has NO such condition, and even if she did, such a condition has NOTHING to do with socialized sex-role stereotypes at any age MUCH LESS AT ONE YEAR OLD. If Stratton’s child has an endocrinolgical disorder or intersex condition, let her name it! Stratton is deliberately misrepresenting the lived realities and medical challenges of children born with endocrine and reproductive disorders and trying to re-frame sex-stereotype-noncompliance with medical PATHOLOGY. This is an insidious tactic we’ve seen many times before: in the widespread pathologization, medicalization, (including institutionalization, lobotomy and electro-shock “treatments”) of homosexuality.
The transgender lobby, which trans activist Autumn Sandeen has stated succinctly, NEEDS to create “transgender children” to “take the sex out of” the public face of the transgender movement. And the trans lobby is willing to eugenically sterilize children- most of whom would otherwise grow up to be gay and lesbian- to do so.
Gay and lesbian children do NOT have a disorder!
Why is The Advocate providing an uncritical platform to an agenda of pathologizing and medicalizing the behaviors of young children that in majority grow up to be well-adjusted homosexuals? Why is the Advocate uncritically providing a platform for the pre-mature sterilization (via maturity blockers followed by sterilizing cross-sex hormones) of lesbian and gay children? This is the ultimate in pediatric reparative “treatment” of homosexuality, using the methods of the eugenics movement. Lesbians and Gays should be fighting this with every voice, every resource of the gay rights movement.
Here are the proposed diagnosis requirements for pediatric sterilization of lesbian and gay youth as outlined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Americam Psychiatric Association. Children – including infants- who match six of the following eight criteria for a duration of six months will be treated medically as pathological and in need of treatment:
1. a strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that he or she is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
2. in boys, a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
3. a strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe or fantasy play
4. a strong preference for the toys, games, or activities typical of the other gender
5. a strong preference for playmates of the other gender
6. in boys, a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; in girls, a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities
7. a strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
8. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender
Who does this describe? This describes Lesbian and Gay children! And “tomboys”. And kids that just reject sexist stereotypes! And kids going through a phase of sex-role experimentation! And kids that have internalized the grave discomfort of sex-role fundamentalist adults that equate behavior with roles assigned according to biological reproduction!
SPEAK OUT NOW. Stop this new eugenics trend. Support children who defy traditional sex-role stereotypes. Say NO to gender! And say it widely and loudly and NOW. This “transgender children” epoch will be written in history as a criminal medical human rights epidemic based on sexism and homophobia.
The title of Stratton’s book excerpt is “Mother of Transgender Toddler Gets Lesson In Love”. Word up: Conformity to sex role stereotypes is NOT LOVE! Medically implanting pharmaceutical MATURITY BLOCKERS in non-compliant children is NOT LOVE! Placing infants on a pathology tract towards corrective sterilization to promote stereotype conformity IS NOT LOVE!
What is love? LOVE IS SAYING NO TO GENDER.
August 17, 2012
I was going to do a whole post but this summed it all up so well:
August 15, 2012
It was reported to GenderTrender that women yelled loudly “Maaaaan On The Laaaaand!” at male Transbians at Michigan Women’s Music Festival everywhere they went this year. Also received this missive:
“Michfest and the women born women intention policy: we were very well organized in showing visible support for the intention of fest. Those of us supporting the intention wore red throughout the festival. I attended a discussion about trans inclusion, which turned out to be mostly a bunch of trans allies and a MTT (Alice). They were all complaining about the “sea of red” which had been displayed at the opening ceremony and how “unsafe” it made them feel and how guilty they all felt for not being as organized with their t-shirts as we were with ours. I expressed that last year several women had been made to feel unsafe by males yalking about their penis in workshops with survivors. I was told there was a difference between feeling unsafe and uncomfortable and that penises do not really make women feel unsafe only uncomfortable.
I pointed out how crazy they were for believing that a t-shirt was more dangerous than a penis. Alice admitted that he had talked about his penis inappropriately but then dismissed his actions, saying that he is always hearing from women who “claim to be triggered” on the rape crisis line that he volunteers on, but that apparently all these women are just being neurotic and exaggerating (words to that effect). It is unfortunate that one of the women he traumatized last year was unable to come back this year because she does not consider the space to be safe after what happened last year.
Alice [Kalafarski] was the man who severely traumatized a survivor of sexual violence [and then publicly mocked her in a now edited but still incredibly despicable blog post- GM] by talking about his penis in a workshop last year about female masturbation and sexual violence post male sexual violence. The survivor had never been to Michfest before and she was a young woman in her early twenties. She was not at fest this year, and may never come again after this experience with Alice. Yet Alice was there. How fucked up is that?
We walked past him on one of the feminist parades and X and a few others yelled out “Man On The Land” which I later got “told off” about, even though I didn’t say anything lol. Over all a very successful year for us, and I had a woman tell me she had concluded we were right after listening to us, even though she had gone to the workshops on this issue sympathetic to trans inclusion. I do worry about the presence of that Alice at fest and also him on that help line. I am concerned he gets off on women’s sexual trauma. We need to keep up the pressure to keep the policy and to find a way to deal with perpetrators on the land.
This year was excellent in terms of resistance to trans presence at the fest. There were hundreds of women wearing red and a group of women had made about 500 t-shirts with the slogan “Big Up The Female: Power, Power”. The support for women-only space at Michfest was palpable and heart-warming.
Other women had made patches saying, “Respect the Intention, Respect the Healing”. I met tons of women who were in support of the intention and didn’t cop shit from anyone despite being covered in red the entire festival. Quite a few of us women went up to Alice and asked him to leave. I think that we made the men on the land feel incredibly unwelcome and uncomfortable this year. I feel very positive and happy about that. “
August 15, 2012
Better watch this one quick. This 2009 video archive of the 16×9 news program featuring the John Fulton case was only uploaded yesterday but trans are already trying to censor it and prevent it from being viewed- by reporting it to YouTube as “promoting hatred and violence” (!) :
Fulton was the owner of an Ontario women-only gym (which had only one open shower and change area) who was dragged before the Ontario Human Rights Commission three years ago by man with a penis, Lisa MacDonald- who insisted it was his human right to parade his dick into the open women’s shower. Fulton lost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before MacDonald suddenly dropped his complaint. Since the Commission could not rule on the withdrawn complaint, Fulton had no resolution and no way to recoup his legal fees.
Case against John Fulton
In 2006, a transgendered woman (now known as Lisa MacDonald) visited Downtown Health Club for Women in St. Catharines, Ontario and asked owner John Fulton for Membership. MacDonald explained that she was actually a pre-operative Male-to-Female transsexual who was in the process of undergoing as sex-change operation, but for the time being, still possessed male gentalia. Fulton explained his concern that with only one change room and shower room in the club, admitting this individual would have meant allowing a man to observe the other patrons—all female—in various stages of undress. Approximately one week later, the individual filed a human rights complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination.
Fulton, and his lawyer Andrew Roman, argued that the Ontario Human Rights Code specifically permits facilities to serve a single sex on the grounds of public decency, and ordains that such restrictions do not constitute illegal discrimination. They also argued that that admitting the complainant would violate the rights of club members to freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fulton also questioned how he was supposed to distinguish the applicant from a voyeur or an exhibitionist.
Fulton stated that he received calls from his members threatening to quit if the transgendered individual was allowed to join before the sex-change operation was completed. Fulton also claimed that the OHRC told him he had to let the transgendered individual use the women’s facilities but refused to provide him with a clear answer on what his rights and the rights of his female clients were in this situation. Fulton also stated he never denied membership to the applicant and that she was welcome to use club once the sex-change operation was completed.
The case was scheduled for a hearing in late 2009. However, the individual then withdrew the complaint without explanation. As a result, Fulton was left with legal bills of roughly $150,000 and argued that he had been wrongly accused of being a discriminatory without being given a chance to respond. The Tribunal refused to compensate Fulton for any costs, stating that it lacked the authority to do so. In an interview with the St. Catharines Standard, Fulton stated that “They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it. There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”
In declining to provide award any costs to Fulton, The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s Alternate Chair Kaye Joachim wrote that:
- the HRTO had no authority to award costs;
- no costs against could be awarded against the complainant because Alternate Chair Joachim ruled that there was no abuse the complaint process;
- the complainant had “raised important and novel questions about the scope of the Code and its application to transgendered individuals.”;
- Fulton and his lawyers “may have caused unnecessary legal costs by raising spurious preliminary issues,” including constitutional arguments that were later dropped;
- Fulton party’s request that MacDonald produce her entire medical history was, in part, “completely irrelevant to the issues raised in the application.
Fulton’s lawyer, Andrew Roman disargeed with Joachim’s comments, adding that “I’ll be taking steps to deal with that…The way the tribunal is set up now, the complainant is rewarded for taking a risk-free grab at a big bag of money. Roman claimed that at the mediation stage, the “typical payoff” is often around $20,000 and that if a person “can’t work out a settlement at mediation, you go to a hearing and have to pay many times that.” Fulton also claimed that the Commission pushed him to pay MacDonald, stating that “They told me that I had to pay her legal fees, write a letter of apology admitting guilt and I could make it go away,” but he refused, stating that ” I didn’t know what to do and I wanted … a tribunal decision. I’m stubborn.” He also stated that “They’re picking on the wrong guy. The OHRC needs to be rejigged … before other people end up being in a situation where they feel like they’re being extorted.”
Karen Selick, the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation which supported Mr. Fulton, sharply criticized the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the process by which it handles complaints, writing in the National Post that:
“For complainants, the process is virtually risk-free. It costs them nothing to file a complaint, and the tribunal mediator will help explain the shakedown. If they want some legal help filing their complaint, they can get it gratis, at the taxpayer-funded Human Rights Legal Support Centre. And they never have to risk paying costs, no matter how ill-conceived or unjustified their complaint was. Heads, the complainant wins; tails, the accused loses.”
In February 2009, Afroze Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) expressed support for the applicant, arguing that:
“The [Ontario Human Rights] code does not distinguish between transsexuals who are at different stages of transition.. I think the important thing to remember there is how they identify themselves; what their sense is, that they are living as a man or living as a woman. Regardless of whether they’re preop or postop, it’s their lived gender that’s important.”
Interestingly, Kristen Worley- a male athlete and genderist who occupies a female slot in women’s cyclist rankings despite his male body – is interviewed in the program and comes out AGAINST the rights of males to inflict their penises on females in gym showers and change rooms.
Like I said: Watch it while you can!