ENDA 2013: Now With More Penises in Women’s Showers

Keisling after feminising facial plastic surgery (and I’m guessing a lid lift)

ENDA the Employment Nondiscrimination Act was intended to be a Federal protection against employment discrimination against individuals who were fired- or not hired- by employers on the basis of homosexuality.

ENDA was passed by the House of Representatives in 2007 but transgender activists mounted a protest against it. They claimed the act did not support the rights of transgenders: those who believe conservative social sex-roles including behavior, interests and psychology now widely regarded as sexist and oppressive to females are instead biologically based on reproductive function and located in some scientifically yet undiscovered portion of the human brain (perhaps located near the “Negroid brain” of years past).

Legal protections for homosexuals contained the dangerous idea that female relations could be accorded the same legal status as relations accorded to men. This was an accidental and unintended byproduct of the male homosexual rights movement.  Genderists protested (and sought to correct) this female right, and gay males supported them. Further, they claimed that females should have no legal status at all. Less than what they came with. They sought to undermine all political and legal rights for women.

They proclaimed that females didn’t actually exist. There was no such thing as a female human, even as those humans were being raped, enslaved, and thrust into a social caste system worldwide. They forwarded the political ideal that female was a state of mind. Females weren’t those fighting oppressive discrimination, violence, and sexual slavery based on their reproductive capacity. Rather, females were any individuals who enjoyed embodying or playing out the sexualized stereotypes forced onto women (even part time as a fetishized sexual role-playing leisure activity).

The men leading the gay rights movement were okay with this. Women were there to make the coffee and provide support (and be grateful) as far as men were concerned and if other guys wanted to support the male sexual rights agenda well then hell, the more the merrier. But they ran into the same political sticking point as they did with gay male sexual rights activists Harry Hays and Allen Ginsberg in their support of NAMBLA: Other fucking men. Hetero men.

Hetero Men didn’t like NAMBLA. Some men didn’t like the idea of other dudes sticking their dicks into male children. The Gay Rights movement crossed a line. Female children  are fine – it’s accepted all around the world with nary a male shrug- but males? Some guys objected to male children being treated like female children.

Gay men were fine with the trans thing philosophically. What the hell do they care? Drag is da bomb. Fish is fish. And the whole “females don’t exist” thing is cool. Whatever!  But some Hetero bros get upset when other dudes shower naked with their impregnable livestock.  Because females actually do exist as impregnable property owned by men. Just like goats! Ixney on the IxDey on my wife dude. Keep your impregnator stick away from my livestock. Thems are mines to impregnate. I’ll be in charge of the animal husbandry, thanx.

Mara Keisling, the heterosexual running his National Center For Trans Equality explained the whole dicks in showers with your wife and daughters thing with the due diligence warranted. The whole right of women to say NOOOOOOOO to a dick-wielding dude in female spaces where exposure is unavoidable (showers, locker rooms) is a simple matter of a “small technicality”. That’s right bros. Small technicality. Get on board.

Keisling, a divorced father who followed the typical road to male womanhood (investment of 60 grand into facial feminization surgery from his savings as a middle aged man after a lifetime of sexualized crossdressing fantasy life) described the new penis in women’s showers version of ENDA as follows:

“There are small technical changes made to ENDA since it was last introduced in 2011. ENDA is being introduced in substantially the same form as it was in both 2009 and 2011, but there are some technical changes meant to reflect legal and other advancements that have occurred in ensuing years. The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms “where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable.” None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA. NCTE will work tirelessly to make sure that members of Congress stay focused on the important and core issue of job discrimination and do not get sidetracked with extraneous and discriminatory issues like restroom use.”

That’s right folks! You won’t see this being reported by (male) LGBT sources. ENDA2013 is now officially PRO dick in women’s showers. Minor technicality of no consequence to those that matter: Men.

Into the Mind of Kosilek: Grace’s Daughter – a Book Review

“Psychopaths never quit.” – Margaret Singer

Criminal memoirs, like parole hearings, are not usually known for their authenticity, honesty, self-reflection and accurate reportage. In the criminal memoir every hapless burglar is a master thief, every two-bit hood a mob capo, every sociopath a revolutionary.

Criminal memoirs are: Jack Henry Abbott waxing bromantically to Norman Mailer about the inhumanity of his incarceration -just prior to committing another murder, serial rapist Eldridge Cleaver expounding on the act of rape as a revolutionary act, Tex Watson intoning on the redemptive power of bible-believing among guys who hang pregnant starlets alive while cutting them open.

In the Crime Memoir sub-genre of the “wrongly convicted” the tropes are even more hackneyed as the memoir essentially serves as one long desperate attempt to explain away all that blood. Kosilek’s memoir is of the sub-genre category, flavored with a heaping dose of self-pity, narcissism and sociopathy.

Most of the U.S. “Son of Sam Laws” (enacted in the wake of serial killer David Berkowitz’ attempts to sell his story for profit) have been repealed or overturned on First Amendment grounds leaving murderers free to profit from the dubious celebrity of committing horrific acts and selling them for entertainment to an audience hungry for carnage. Any of the millions of average boring bastards that murder their wives are free to offer their suddenly compelling and unique tale on any of a number of online vanity publishing sites for a few bucks. Kosilek’s memoir “Grace’s Daughter” is one of those, and it was on just such a site that I found it. Yes, I persuaded a friend to kindly give Kosilek two dollars and ninety-nine cents for a copy of his tome. For that ethical indiscretion I am sorry.

I was curious though. Slightly curious. Under three dollars curious.

There are very few reasons to subject oneself to 400-plus pages of self-serving criminal lies. Some of these reasons may include curiosity about a particular crime or crime spree. Perhaps a historic crime is so distinct that the reader longs for some insight to explain the psychology of the perpetrators or details of the era (think “Symbionese Liberation Army“ or the “Manson Family”). Maybe an author relates an inside experience of the justice system and incarceration compellingly. Perhaps the perp is just an entertaining storyteller and a fantastic writer.

Kosilek’s memoir has none of that. Men like him who brutally decapitate their loving wives are, sadly, a dime a dozen. He is a terrible writer and a bad liar. But Kosilek has one thing going for him and his memoir: A judge has issued an order forcing the populace of Massachusetts to pay upwards of $100,000 (including surgery, travel, security including 24 hour hospital guards, post-op care, follow-up appointments both surgical and endocrinological, possible revisions) so that a decapitation killer can have his genitals cosmetically refashioned into a fleshy sheath for other men to stick their dicks into. Because the murderer thinks such a procedure will make him a woman, and the murderer has threatened to be upset and/or harm himself if his delusions are not indulged (and enabled) by the legal system and the public at large.

Again, there is nothing unique about that. Plenty of people believe doctors can perform actual changes of sex, creating women out of men and vice versa. Well maybe not plenty. But lots are willing to pretend they believe, or at least go along with the idea, out of politeness or the hope that doctors and judges know what the hell they are doing. And plenty of people think the presence of a fleshy sheath that men can stick their dicks into defines the female sex.

Perhaps in reading the 103,010 word tome I would gain a new understanding of Kosilek’s savagery and rage for the woman who loved him, who married him, the one whose decapitated body he dumped like so much trash before cooking and enjoying a delicious steak dinner with the victim’s unsuspecting son in the very space he had garroted her hours before?

Transforming Emily: The voice of a man campaigning for Medicaid funded “Gender Surgery”

From the horse’s mouth: listen to one of the men leading the campaign for Medicaid funded “sex-change” surgeries. The profound sexism and belief in “sex-based personality” is a characteristic of transgender beliefs. If you want to understand transgenderism: watch this video.

 

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/emily-s-transformation?website_name=transformingemily

Government Medicaid/Medicare funding for “Sex Change Surgery” proposed, then withdrawn within hours

Early in the day Friday March 29 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a ground-breaking announcement. For the first time since 1981, when so-called “sex-change” surgeries were declared experimental and not eligible for government covered funding, the division was considering reversing that decision. HHS declared its intention to solicit public input for thirty days prior to reversing the ban on government funded radical cosmetic surgeries which attempt to visually change the appearance of male genitals to female, and vice versa, on individuals who believe in sex-based personality theory, or who are diagnosed with gender/sex-role based mental illness.

From The Advocate:

“The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal government’s national insurance program, is reconsidering whether or not it should cover gender reassignment surgery (often called sex reassignment surgery) for transgender people who have Medicare. It has offered the public 30 days to offer opinions on the matter. Since around 48 million people are covered by Medicare, if the agency decides to allow coverage, the change would have a significant impact on transgender people in the U.S.

This official reconsideration of coverage began yesterday and goes for 29 more days in which the public can comment.

The center states that it “considers all public comments, and is particularly interested in clinical studies and other scientific information relevant to the topic under review. Surgical Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder is currently noncovered under the Medicare Part A and Part B programs. The existing policy, which became effective in 1981, states that transsexual surgery is considered experimental. Please note that we are making an administrative change to the NCD title under this reconsideration to reflect current medical terminology. The new title for Section 140.3 will be Surgical Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder.”

Trans activists and medical professionals are urging everyone to comment in support of a change.”

From the Washington Examiner:

“In shift, Medicare would pay for sex-change operations

March 29, 2013 | 10:57 am 

For the first time since 1981, when it dubbed sex-change operations “experimental,” Medicare has opened the door to covering transexual operations, adding to the growing list of operations that would be allowed under Obamacare.

Acting on a new request, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servicessaid it is starting a new analysis that could lift the spending ban for sex-change operations with a goal of making a decision two days after Christmas and on the eve of Obamacare kicking in Jan. 1.

A 30-day public comment period just opened on the proposed “National Coverage Determination.”

“Surgical Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder, formerly referred to as transsexual surgery in 140.3, is currently noncovered under the Medicare Part A and Part B programs. The existing policy, which became effective in 1981, states that transsexual surgery is considered experimental,” said the notice just posted on the CMS.gov site.

“Please note that we are making an administrative change to the NCD title under this reconsideration to reflect current medical terminology. The new title for Section 140.3 will be Surgical Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder,” it adds.

The National Center for Transgender Equality is among those pushing for the changes.

In supporting letters to CMS, one of the proponents claims that the experimental status of sex-change operations has long passed and that studies confirm it works. “These medical procedures and treatment protocols are not experimental: decades of both clinical experience and medical research show they are essential to achieving well-being for the transsexual patient,” said the letter.

A second letter called the federal policy discriminatory, and added that failure to get the operation by those who needed can cause death. “The net effect is a failure to treat a treatable disorder which in many cases leads to death. The discrimination (is) clearly un-American,” added the letter.“

By the end of the day the entire proposal had been retracted.

From TheHill:

“HHS withdraws plan to consider coverage of sex-change operations

The Health and Human Services Department said early Friday that it would accept public comments on whether to reexamine its decision not to cover sex changes. 

But a spokesperson said Friday evening that the proposal has been withdrawn. HHS pulled information from its website Friday after various news media outlets reported on the issue.

The controversial decision to consider using taxpayer money to cover sex changes was sure to attract criticism from Congress.

An HHS spokesman said HHS’ Departmental Appeals Board is weighing a challenge to the department’s ruling that sex-change procedures are experimental and should not be covered by Medicare and Medicaid. While that challenge works its way through the system, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has withdrawn its proposal to reconsider the coverage policy on its own.

“An administrative challenge to our 1981 Medicare national coverage determination concerning sex reassignment surgery was just filed,” a spokesperson said Friday. “This administrative challenge is being considered and working its way through the proper administrative channels. In light of the challenge, we are no longer re-opening the national coverage determination for reconsideration.”

Guess the whole “Obamacare funds free cosmetic sex-change” spin didn’t play so well. Perhaps during an economic depression where the have-nots can’t afford groceries and Medicare fails to cover eyesight and dental care -those who are hungry, going blind and losing their teeth didn’t take too kindly to paying for cosmetic surgeries for those who believe they would be happier if they looked superficially more like they had a different reproductive biology than the one they were born with.

Interesting this quote from the idiots at CMS: “”Please note that we are making an administrative change to the NCD title under this reconsideration to reflect current medical terminology. The new title for Section 140.3 will be Surgical Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder” . “Current medical terminology” which becomes obsolete in one month when the diagnosis of “Gender Identity Disorder” is eliminated in the DSM and replaced with “Gender Dysphoria”?  Totally clueless.

The link to the HHS public feedback site now gives a 404/error when clicked. Very very interesting. GenderTrender will be following these developments closely as details emerge.

PCC rules against the criminalization of Trans-Critical feminist Julie Burchill

Burchill, taking no shit- and loving it!

The Press Complaints Commission has issued its ruling following an inquiry into the Julie Burchill article.  Transgenders called for the criminalization and censorship of Burchill when she described trans activists who use threats of rape and murder against feminists as “bedwetters in bad wigs”. The title of the article “Transsexuals should cut it out” referred to the ubiquitous harassment, violent threats, and bullying against feminists by transgender activists. You can read her censored article in full HERE.

The Ruling:

Commission’s decision in the case of

Two Complainants v The Observer / The Daily Telegraph

 

The complainants were concerned about a comment article which responded to criticism of another columnist on social networking sites. The article had first been published by The Observer. Following The Observer’s decision to remove the article from its website, it had been republished on the website of The Daily Telegraph. The Commission received over 800 complaints about the article, which it investigated in correspondence with two lead complainants, one for each newspaper.

The complainants considered that the article contained a number of prejudicial and pejorative references to transgender people in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. They also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that language used by the columnist was inaccurate as well as offensive, and, furthermore that the article misleadingly suggested that the term “cis-gendered” was insulting. Additionally, concerns had been raised that the repeated use of terms of offence had breached Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code.

The Commission first considered the complaints, framed under Clause 12, that the article had contained a number of remarks about transgender people that were pejorative and discriminatory. It noted that the Observer had accepted that these remarks were offensive, and that it had made the decision to remove the article on the basis that the language used fell outside the scope of what it considered reasonable; however, the Observer denied a breach of Clause 12 because the article had not made reference to any specific individual. Clause 12 states that newspapers “must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The language used in the article did not refer to any identifiable individual, but to transgender people generally. While the Commission acknowledged the depth of the complainants’ concerns about the terminology used, in the absence of reference to a particular individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.

The Commission also considered the complaint under the terms of Clause 1, which states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures”. Complainants had suggested that the terms used in the article to refer to transgender people were inaccurate or misleading. Whilst the Commission acknowledged this concern, it was clear from the tone of the article that these terms were being used to express an opinion. Whilst many people had found this opinion deeply distasteful and upsetting, the columnist was entitled to express her views under the terms of Clause 1(iii), so long as the statements were clearly distinguished from fact. The same was true in relation to the columnist’s assertion that the term “cis-gendered” is offensive. Viewed in the context of the article as a whole, particularly in light of the fact that the article had been deliberately identified as a comment piece, this was clearly distinguishable as an expression of her opinion about the term rather than a statement of fact about how it is perceived more broadly. This did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, for the purposes of Clause 1(i), and neither was there any significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1.

The Commission turned to consider those concerns raised under Clause 4, which states that “journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. It made clear, however, that the publication of a single comment piece was not conduct which would engage the terms of Clause 4. There was no breach of the Code.

The Commission acknowledged that the complainants found much of the article offensive. Nonetheless, the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised.  It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

Too bad, bedwetters.

[bolding by me-GM]

-

Massachusetts State Education Board issues unprecedented Gender Guidelines : enforcing legal sex-stereotyping in all public schools across the state

The State of Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education released late Friday ( in a classic move used to avoid news cycle coverage) an 11 page document containing mandated guidelines on the implementation of legal “Gender Identity” which effective immediately- replaces legal sex of children with state-mandated sex “roles” based on outdated sex stereotypes, a practice which the Federal government has already rendered illegal and discriminatory(see Price Waterhouse).

It’s no wonder the Governor-appointed Board timed the release of this document to avoid media and public scrutiny: it contains possibly the most widespread state-sanctioned codification and enforcement of sex-role stereotyping enacted on the populace by a government body since the passage of Federal Title VII regulations which were specifically designed to prevent such a practice.

Specifically, as of Friday, legal sex of all primary and secondary students is eliminated and replaced with a legal category based on student adherence to sex-role stereotypical behaviors classified as feelings, thoughts, behaviors that the State of Massachusetts deems “male feelings” or “female feelings”. “Male behaviors” and “Female behaviors”, “Male thoughts” and “Female thoughts”. Truly remarkable.

“A gender marker is the designation on school and other records that indicates a student’s gender. For most students, records that include an indication of a student’s gender will reflect a student’s assigned birth sex. For transgender students, however, a documented gender marker (for example, “male” or “female” on a permanent record) should reflect the student’s gender identity, not the student’s assigned sex. This means that if a transgender student whose gender identity is male has a school record that reflects an assigned birth sex as female, then upon request by the student or, in the case of young students not yet able to advocate for themselves, by the parent or guardian, the school should change the gender marker on the record to male.”

The State of Massachusetts now officially subjects all students who fail to conform to sex-role stereotypical feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, to the state classification “transgender”.

“Transgender: an umbrella term used to describe a person whose gender identity or gender expression is different from that traditionally associated with the assigned sex at birth. “

Further, the guidelines eliminate all Federal sex-based protections for female students (example: Title IX which guarantees equal funding of educational programming based on sex; female rights to sex-segregated showers, locker rooms, toilets).

The guidelines mandate that female students must shower with and undress in the presence of male students during mandatory physical education programs. If the girls refuse, they are to receive state-mandated counseling sessions designed to overcome their resistance. Should the girls persist in refusal to shower and change clothing in the presence of male students or if they fail to pretend a male is female they will receive state-sanctioned disciplinary actions against them which will effect their participation in the public educational system.

“In all cases, the principal should be clear with the student (and parent) that the student may access the restroom, locker room, and changing facility that corresponds to the student’s gender identity. “

“Some students may feel uncomfortable with a transgender student using the same sex-segregated restroom, locker room or changing facility. This discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student. School administrators and counseling staff should work with students to address the discomfort and to foster understanding of gender identity, to create a school culture that respects and values all students. “

“The student John Smith wishes to be referred to by the name Jane Smith, a name that is consistent with the student’s female gender identity. Please be certain to use the student’s preferred name in all contexts, as well as the corresponding pronouns. It is my expectation that students will similarly refer to the student by her chosen name and preferred pronouns. Your role modeling will help make a smooth transition for all concerned. If students do not act accordingly, you may speak to them privately after class to request that they do. Continued, repeated, and intentional misuse of names and pronouns may erode the educational environment for Jane. It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline. “

All female sports teams in the State of Massachusetts will henceforth be open to male students, on the condition that the male student professes an “earnestly felt belief” that he conforms in some way to stereotypical sex-roles traditionally assigned to females (at least sometimes: his sex-role feelings may wax and wane throughout the day and the guidelines explicitly support this).

“Where there are sex-segregated classes or athletic activities, including intramural and interscholastic athletics, all students must be allowed to participate in a manner consistent with their gender identity. “

“The statute does not require consistent and uniform assertion of gender identity as long as there is “other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of [the] person’s core identity.” “

“Confirmation of a student’s asserted gender identity may include a letter from a parent, health care provider, school staff member familiar with the student (a teacher, guidance counselor, or school psychologist, among others), or other family members or friends. A letter from a social worker, doctor, nurse practitioner, or other health care provider stating that a student is being provided medical care or treatment relating to her/his gender identity is one form of confirmation of an asserted gender identity. It is not, however, the exclusive form upon which the school or student may rely. A letter from a clergy member, coach, family friend, or relative stating that the student has asked to be treated consistent with her/his asserted gender identity, or photographs at public events or family gatherings, are other potential forms of confirmation. “ [Photographs illustrating what? One presumes illustrating the child engaged in some form of culturally sex-stereotypical dress or behavior-GM.]

The guidelines mandate and codify differential social role treatment of girl and boy students by all teachers and administrators based on sex and on student adherence to sex-role stereotypes.

“In most situations, determining a student’s gender identity is simple. A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl. So too with a student who says he is a boy and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of his life. Such a student should be respected and treated like a boy. “

This government document explicitly equates legal protection from sex-based discrimination for women and girls as “discriminatory” to those who “profess a strongly held belief” in sex-role stereotyping and discrimination.

The government of Massachusetts, in accordance with the above premise, removes and eliminates all sex-based protections (both state and federal) for females against sex-discrimination. This policy is a stunning example of how the new legal category “Gender Identity” or “Sex-Role Identity” is directly in opposition to female legal protections and recourse against discrimination based on sex. It elevates discrimination against females to a protected category while eliminating all hard-won feminist gains against the practice of mandating legal status based on sex stereotypes.

These new guidelines, which apply to all public primary and secondary students in the public school system, are based on the Massachusetts State Legislature policy giving special legal status to individuals who profess a strongly held belief in stereotypical “Sex-Role Identifications” in its 2011: An Act Relative to Gender Identity (Chapter 199)

That law held that individuals should not be discriminated against based on their “consistent and uniform assertion” and “sincerely held belief” in sex-role stereotypes or “gender”. That is what the law states. But what it actually DOES, if one looks at the statute, is create a legal status based on stereotypical sex-based (and discriminatory!) social ROLES as a REPLACEMENT for legal sex. See the laws related to sex which were amended to replace biological sex with “sex-role” or “gender”:

———————————————————————

SECTION 3. Section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in lines 91 and 320, in each instance, the following words:- , gender identity.

SECTION 4. Section 5 of chapter 76 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in line 10, the following words:- , gender identity.

SECTION 5. Section 12B of said chapter 76, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in line 185, the following words:- , gender identity.

SECTION 6. Section 3 of chapter 151B of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in lines 17 and 61, in each instance, the following words:- , gender identity.

SECTION 7. Section 4 of said chapter 151B, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in lines 3, 69, 82, 87, 96, 103, 136, 163, 169, 179, 226, 233, 243, 339, 349, 353, 359, 485, 495, 505, 661 and 670, in each instance, the following words:- , gender identity.

———————————————————————————-

The Massachusetts law does not explicitly define “Gender”. Here is the World Health Organization definition:

What do we mean by “sex” and “gender”?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term “gender”, and how it differs from the closely related term “sex”.

“Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

“Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

“Male” and “female” are sex categories, while “masculine” and “feminine” are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

• Women menstruate while men do not
• Men have testicles while women do not
• Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
• Men generally have more massive bones than women

Some examples of gender characteristics :

• In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
• In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
• In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
• In most of the world, women do more housework than men

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

————————————————————————————

The definition of“Gender” is sex-role stereotyping. Gender is “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”.

“Gender Identity” is “Sex-Role Identity”.

While all Massachusetts citizens are entitled to their personal sex-role beliefs or identifications, the State has no business promoting sex-role beliefs, which are by their very nature stereotyping and inherently discriminatory against women.

Sex role stereotyping is bad for women and girls. Many of the legal protections for female students that are being eliminated state-wide by this document were designed to counter some of the negative effects of sex-role stereotyping, for example the lack of equal funding given to girl athletes based on the sex-role stereotype that females are not athletic, or that females should not exhibit behaviors that are competitive. Title IX was created to counter sex-based discrimination policies enacted for decades by public educational institutions.

Feminists support the abolition of sex-role stereotypes. Feminists do not support social policies which conflate sex-role stereotypes with reproductive sex.

When the state mandates that children should be treated differently based on arbitrary, sexist stereotypes, when the state educational system declares against all known science and fact, that those who do not abide sex-role stereotypes must not actually be male or female sexed, when the government disciplines children for acknowledging biological reality and scientific fact in an educational system, when the government mandates that girls – at least one quarter of which will be sexually assaulted by a male in her lifetime- receive state-mandated psychological counseling to impress upon her that her discomfort showering with male high school students is evidence that she has a psychological dysfunction (!) and that the state will discipline her if she continues to express fear (!!) FEMINISTS DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.

Women, Women’s Rights Activists, Concerned Parents, Feminists call on the State of Massachusetts under Governor Deval Patrick to:

1. Compel the State Board to develop guidelines that protect the rights of students and parents to hold strongly held sex-role beliefs
2. WITHOUT codifying those personal, private sex-role beliefs into state law,
3. WITHOUT eliminating sex-based protections and rights of female students (Title IX protections, right to sex-based changing rooms, restrooms and other spaces sex-segregated for female safety)
4. WITHOUT inflicting state-sponsored discipline or punitive psychological “counseling” treatments on children who do NOT share the strongly held sex-role beliefs of others, and who do NOT believe that biological sex is maleable,
5. WITHOUT forcing children through power of the state to comply with sex-role stereotypes,
6. WITHOUT mandating that teachers, administrators, and others acting under authority of the state treat male and female students differently according to “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”, many of which are designed to restrict female equality.

You may contact Governor Patrick here:

Boston Massachusetts State House Office of the Governor Office of the Lt. Governor Room 280 Boston, MA 02133 Phone: 617.725.4005 888.870.7770 (in state) Fax: 617.727.9725 TTY: 617.727.3666

Springfield Western Massachusetts Office of the Governor State Office Building 436 Dwight Street Suite 300 Springfield, MA 01103 Phone: 413.784.1200

Washington, DC Office of the Governor 444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 208 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: 202.624.7713 Fax: 202.624.7714

http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/

Read the full 11 page PDF by clicking here:

http://www.doe.mass.edu/ssce/GenderIdentity.pdf

“Trans Woman student Abused and Shoved out of toilets at Leeds University”

So the headline reads.

These sorts of stories always catch my eye, because in my years of reporting on gender trends I have learned that the facts behind the story are often more complex than the headline would imply. The first thing I assume in reading a headline like this, is that whatever bathroom incident occurred, it did NOT occur in a mensroom. I make this assumption because I’ve never seen a “bathroom incident” reported where a male transgender was “abused” or ejected from a men’s bathroom.

One would think with the transgender movement’s primary, number one issue being male access to women’s lavatories and locker rooms (and other public spaces segregated by sex for female protection against male predation) that the evidence of NEED to access such spaces- for example evidence of attacks on those males who wear female clothes into men’s lavatories- would be widespread. Or at least exist at all. To my knowledge no such incidents have been reported. I have asked trans activists repeatedly to provide evidence of the danger to males using male restrooms, even if they wear women’s clothes, but none has ever been able to locate any cited incident.

If there is criminal report involving a male transgender and a restroom it is pretty much assured that the incident involved women taking issue with a member of the violence and rape class (males) inserting himself into spaces sex-segregated to keep him out.

As transgender male rights activists are fond of pointing out: laws don’t prevent all crime from happening (much as laws against speeding don’t cause all drivers to obey the speed limit). Men still rape, assault, murder, peep, install hidden cameras, etc. in women’s restrooms BY THE SCORES even with laws against it. I can cite dozens if not hundreds of such reported, citable cases on a weekly basis, 52/365, even though such “incidents” are so common they are seldom reported, much less investigated. Some of those cases involve transgender males.

Are all males (including the transgender variety) violent rapists? No. Of course not. But a shockingly high percentage of males are, and females (those of us who have survived so far) are very well aware of this objective fact every waking moment of our lives. We are aware every time we walk to our car in a parking lot, when we go out alone at night, when we leave our drink at the bar, when we accept a lift home from that seemingly nice man, when we see that guy talking to our kids. Every time a woman leaves home – or even IN her home: are the windows locked? Drapes pulled?- she measures her proximity to her impending rape, torture, murder, by those committing rape, torture, murder at an epidemic rate: Males. And she knows her rape, torture, murder, should it occur, will likely go completely unpunished by the male power structures that she will appeal to for protection and justice. Every woman knows this, in every country, every region, every town and neighborhood and home. So when we read the headline “Trans Woman student Abused and shoved out of toilets” we know it really means “Women acted with self-preservation against male who behaved in a threatening manner”.

This latest story, picked up by PinkNews, the Montreal Gazette, Leeds Student Org among others portrays a tale of discrimination and persecution against a male by those awful irrational and hateful bullies: women. Stupid, bigoted rape-avoiding women who trust their own instincts of self-preservation.

From PinkNews : “A trans woman student at Leeds University was verbally abused and pushed out of the Student Union’s female toilets by two girls. “

Wow. So a grown person was attacked by two female children? Nope. The adult (“woman”) in this case is a 21 year old man and the “girls” are females also of adult age.

More from Pink News : “According to reports, Alexis, a Microbiology student who was transitioning from male to female, was shouted at and shoved in the chest by two girls, during a night called Fruity.

She said: “I’m very angry at those girls. I know better than anyone that I don’t look like a girl yet. Misgendering me is something I expect, but grabbing my breasts and shoving me is completely unacceptable. It’s wrong for a natural-born girl to insult a trans girl, especially one who prefers to dress more masculine, simply because she likes to. We’re doing the best we can – you’re lucky to have been born that way, and we can dress however we please, just like you”, Alexis added.”

Golly. This is an angry man. He commented on the Pink News site stating that he is “out” to everyone as being trans and that the women he frightened are “bitches” :

 

Alexis/Doug

.

Doug/Alexis

Alexis Lilith Starr aka Protoman2050 aka Douglas Pereira is a 21 year old man from Long Beach, CA whose “gender identity” is that of a man, who “loves” his dick and has no intention of “passing” (in the lingo of transactivists) as the other sex. As some transgender males do, he describes his penis as a “Click” (an amalgomation of “clit” and “dick”) and signs all his comments with the following statement “I’m more of a man than you will ever be, more of a woman than you can handle, and my damn click will break your jaw”.

Douglas started taking estrogen pills in November. As of last month he bemoaned the lack of any apparent physical changes to his 6’1″ male frame.  Among his many recent public posts, many to psychology sites inquiring if he may have a sociopathic disorder due to his lack of empathy and ethics, he has expressed his desire to become a “shemale” escort after completing his Phd.

Doug/Alexis with Laydee Wig

Doug says:

“Probably by the end of this, I’ll end up pretty much as a “chick with a dick who isn’t a chick”. Thin yet toned, small breasts (that can easily be bound when the situation requires it) androgynous dress, yet be legally and, for the most part, socially male.”

and

“Who said I wanted SRS? I’m actually an androgyne (mentally both male and female, yet also neither), and I’m adjusting my body type to make that known. I love my penis too! Can’t imagine not being able to pee standing up. So yeah, I’m going to become an “it”.

So, dude is a dude that is doing some body mods to get his freak on. The whole “I’m a tragic fellow who’s a lady born in a male body who will kill myself unless you enable me medically and surgically and socially to cosmetically appear female in which case I will be a well-adjusted guy instead of (insert threat) is total crap. This is a dude that wants some body mods. The whole “female in a male’s body” trope that worked 50 years ago doesn’t apply any more. These dudes are in no way female. They never were.

I’m going to go right out on a limb here, and flat out state that NO WOMAN EVER wants to change her tampon in a room with a guy whose most important statement about himself is that his beloved penis is a weapon that can fracture bones.

Is that “transphobic”? Who gives a crap. Seriously.

There was another story this week posted by The Advocate from a man complaining about the self-preservation instinct of women against the epidemic of male rape and assault. In this story- sponsored by an LGBT news outlet – a man named Riki Wilchins complains about and mocks women for trying to protect themselves against an epidemic of male rape and violence so pervasive that we call it culture. As in rape culture. He opines at length that women who become alarmed at creepy men like himself and Doug in female restrooms are “crazy”.

Wilchens is known as the organizer of the largest transgender activist project in the history of the transgender movement.

What project would that be?

What brought more trans activists together than any other cause?

The fight for equal rights in employment, housing, freedom from male violence?

No. Reflective of the core of trans activism (whose most crucial goal is the abolishment of female rights of assembly and political organizing to protect women against male rape and violence) the largest most populous cause in the entire history of the transgender movement is “Camp Trans”- designed to harass a small annual private women’s music festival (Michigan Women’s Music Festival) and protest female rights of assembly. Wichen’s entire activist life has been devoted to eliminating the rights of females to assemble and organize in the United States. And the male powers that be- a government overwhelmingly- over 80% male! – have given him a legal marker “female” to assist him.

Wilchins: a dude

Riki’s bathroom story sponsored by the Advocate bemoans stupid rape-avoidant women who react to him, a male who presents as a male- the same way they would react to any male aggressively injecting himself into spaces sex-segregated for female safety. His tale of whoa ends with an anecdote where even he was taken aback once by another man who entered the women’s bathroom and pulled down, then removed his pants exhibition-style in the middle of the room. But wait! The man then pulled a dress out of his bag! So he was really a lady! Inside his own mind and stuff! So this dick-waving rape-tastic man in a female space was OKAYYYY. Because: dresses!

Wilchens describes his experiences frightening women as a male-appearing man who now uses the women’s room just for fun:

“I never had to worry about all this because for a long time after I transitioned, I worked hard at presenting as feminine a face as possible.

I say “worked,” because if you’re born into a boy body, then suddenly trying to make it appear reasonably female in your mid-30s is no walk in the park. While I fooled no one, I at least achieved a degree of tolerance from almost everyone.

I could saunter confidently into any restroom that had that outline of a little woman, standing primly in her A-line skirt with her hands at her sides and feet together — you know, the way cisgender women often stand in front of public elevators — and know that if I wasn’t her sister, at least all my effort had purchased another Day Pass to FemaleLand. I drew stares, but not blood.

But gradually that effort evaporated. Strip the long hair, earrings, lipstick, mascara, and blush off most cisgender women and you still usually pretty much see a woman. Strip them off me and what you see is … Richard. And no matter how feminine I feel inside, Richard gets no Day Pass. Richard sauntering confidently into the women’s room is … chaos.”

All but three states in the US – all governed overwhelmingly by males for male interests- allow men like Riki to change their legal sex marker (sometimes with various caveats- cosmetic medicalization for example) to allow men like Riki to better lobby against the rights of females to assemble and organize against male rape and violence. In the UK and some states in the US a man’s simple say-so allows him to act as an agent against the female right to organize and assemble. The primary goal of the transgender movement is elimination of scant female rights to assemble and organize away from males in countries where those rights have been enabled. In the UK all female rights of assembly away from males have already been removed.

What possible reason does a man like Doug or a man like Riki/Richard have to use the female facility? What right to infringe on the rights of females to assemble and organize and be protected -at least nominally- from male encroachment? Even if one believes the myth (absent all evidence) that men are at risk using the men’s facility when they believe themselves in their minds to be women or sport women’s clothes, neither of these men are distinct from any other man to any objective person by any measure. Nor do they claim to be. These men are male, are perceived as, and treated as the males they are every moment of every day. These males face no discrimination whatsoever using the male facilities. They are males, who appear male. They make no claim otherwise. They themselves admit that there is no reason whatsoever, no fear of discrimination or harm whatsoever in using the male facilities allotted for males.

These are the heros of the transgender movement whose sole purpose, whose primary “right” is to prevent women from acting out of common-sense self-preservation against males who behave in ways which indicate that they are predators.

Support women against rape. Support women against rape and violence that is so epidemic and accepted that we call it culture. Do so by protesting the trans-politic whose goal is to criminalize normal female common-sense measures of self-preservation against men whose greatest self-proclaimed attribute is the ability of their rape-sticks to fracture bones. Repeal public policies that enable men to criminalize female self-defense. Repeal policies that allow dudes to render female self-preservation illegal. Repeal legal change of sex designed to remove basic civil rights of women to congregate. Legalize the rights of females to defend ourselves.

Women have the perfect right to eject men from women’s toilets.

Sex discrimination as legal strategy

Reblogged from Sex matters.:

Sex discrimination demands particular kinds of behavior from one sex, but prohibits the same behavior from the other sex.[i] For example, wearing dresses is ok, but only for females; engaging in sexual relations with females is ok, but only for males. Legal prohibition against sex discrimination encompasses the social policing of both homosexuality and sex-role (or gender) non-conformity.

Instead of isolating gender non-conforming and gender dysphoric people as a disordered class of persons whose defining characteristic is their departure from normative sex role behavior or appearance, we should recognize enforcement of sex role limitations as universal violations of our human rights—even when they are supported by medical professionals.

Read more… 815 more words

Word. For those who want to know how to enact legal protections for trans people without undermining the rights of women and girls. Click the link to read more.

Chicago woman who calls herself a “fag”, files complaint against spa for preventing her from showering with men

Levi Pine

Chicago woman Levi Pine, a boycott organizer for service-industry union UniteHere, filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights after she was asked to leave the men’s shower facilities in a public spa. Pine, who is female, has been cosmetically using synthetic testosterone for the last year to masculinize her appearance, but has not undergone any surgical alterations nor has she attempted to change her legal sex marker.

According to the Windy City Times (which uses male pronouns for Pine):

“When he went to the spa on Dec. 9 with a friend, he used the men’s shower facilities. Pine said the manager approached him while he was naked and asked to speak with him.

Both the manager and Pine tell the same story about what happened next.

The manager, who identified himself as John but declined to provide a last name to Windy City Times, questioned Pine about his gender. Pine told John that he was transgender, and John said he could provide Pine with a private shower.

Pine said he did not want a private shower and that he could use the same facilities used by other customers. But, John said, other customers had complained.

“We only have a men’s spa and a women’s spa,” John told Windy City Times.

John said he recognizes that transgender people are a minority, and said that he treats all of his customers the same. But he didn’t want other customers to feel uncomfortable, he said.”

In a post on “Queer” website Bilerico titled “Bathing In Discrimination” Pine explains “I’ve been taking testosterone for about a year and I’m pretty hairy but otherwise intact as I came. This weekend, I was in my full hairy birthday suit in the men’s wet spa area of King Spa & Sauna just outside Chicago when a fully clothed manager approached me. While I was naked, he asked me if I am male or female. I explained that I am transgender.”

The manager asked her to use the areas set aside for female-sexed bathers, and offered an alternative: a private bathing area.

“When I refused, he had me talk to some “marketing” guy on the phone who told me that they “could not accommodate my special needs,” that they “needed to appeal to a wider audience,” and that if I wouldn’t move into a private room I’d have to leave.

I insisted that I had no special needs, that all I wanted was access to the same facilities as every other paying customer. That didn’t change their minds. I asked the manager to look me in the eyes like I’m a human being. He wouldn’t. They gave me a partial refund.”

Pine compares her “right” as a female to bathe with men in a public spa with the Civil Rights Movement, and ends her post with a call for a boycott of the spa, also stating: “Call them, email them, write bad Yelp reviews about them.”

The Illinois Human Rights Act protects the rights of individuals who proclaim social sex-roles as a form of personal identification, but the Act also contains a public accommodations exemption for sex-segregated areas of public nudity.

The 2005 Act defines sex-role identification (“Gender Identity”) as a form of sexual orientation:

“Sexual orientation” means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth. “Sexual orientation” does not include a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult.”

The exemption for public accommodations which are “distinctly private in nature” reads as follows:

“ (775 ILCS 5/5-103) (from Ch. 68, par. 5-103)

    Sec. 5-103. Exemption. Nothing in this Article shall apply to:

    (A) Private Club. A private club, or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of another establishment that is a place of public accommodation.

    (B) Facilities Distinctly Private. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which is distinctly private in nature such as restrooms, shower rooms, bath houses, health clubs and other similar facilities for which the Department, in its rules and regulations, may grant exemptions based on bona fide considerations of public policy.

    (C) Inn, Hotel, Rooming House. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which restricts the rental of rooms to individuals of one sex.”

The Windy City News quotes transgender attorney Joanie Rae Wimmer as proposing that Sex-Role Identification overrides Sex-based exemptions. Wimmer’s legal opinion is that the rights of men and women who personally identify with sex-roles normally assigned to those of the opposite sex overrides the rights of others to sex-segrated showers. From the article:

“The Illinois Human Rights Act does make exceptions for the case of “sex” in locker rooms, health clubs and other settings. But Wimmer said she believes that exception only applies to “sex” and not to “gender identity,” two different protected categories.

John Knight, LGBT project attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, echoed similar sentiments.

Assuming Pine’s version of events are true, he said, “I think certainly, he’s got a valid claim.”

“It’s stigmatizing. It’s not fair treatment,” Knight said. “That would violate the Human Rights Act, to force him into a private facility.”

Pine’s state identification marker does not say “male,” a fact that Knight says should not change his case.

Pine has filed an IDHR complaint against the spa, sent a letter to the spa and notified the Cook County Department of Human Rights. Pine said he simply wants an apology, and wants the spa to adopt a new trans-friendly policy.

“As mad as I am, I feel like this was an opportunity to have dialogue that wouldn’t have happened otherwise,” said Pine.

John, the spa manager, says that if there is a better solution than offering a private room, he does not see it.

“The naked man in the women’s spa: that is equal?” he said. “I don’t think so.”

Joannie Rae Wimmer- Sex-Role Identification overrides Sex-Based Protections

The Illinois Human Rights Commission will have to rule on Wimmer’s assertion, and decide whether – in Illinois at least- personal identification with a particular sex-role, regardless of legal sex, overrides the public’s right to sex-segregated areas of public accommodation in spas and locker rooms, etc. throughout the state.

.

King Spa Kid’s Discount

King Spa men’s shower area

Helena Montana adds “Colleen Francis” clause to Non-Discrimination Statute

Helena Montana City-County Building

Helena Montana city commissioners voted 3-2 yesterday to add a public nudity exemption to the city LGBT non-discrimination ordinance which passed the first phase of the approval process.

A PDF version of the proposed ordinance -prior to the addition of the public nudity amendment- can be viewed here: http://www.kxlh.com/files/draftord.pdf

The proposed non-discrimination statute defines “Gender Identity or Expression” as :

“A gender-related identity expression, or behavior, regardless of the individual’s sex at birth.”

It will provide legal protection to LGBT city residents in all areas of employment, housing, and public accommodation. The public nudity exemption states:

“However in any place of public accommodation where users ordinarily appear in the nude, users may be required to use the facilities designated for their anatomical sex regardless of their gender identity. Such requirements shall not constitute discrimination for purposes of this section 1-8-4”

From the Helena Independent Record, City Commissioner Thweatt explained the amendment “…would allow the owner of a business to remove a person who, for example, was born male but is now a transgender person who had exposed genitalia in a sauna. The explanation was in reference to reports of this happening at Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Wash.”

In that case, a man named Colleen Francis was inadvertently given the legal right to expose his male genitals to high school girls in the female locker room, due to an overly broad Washington State public accommodation statute. You can read about that case here: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/olympia-wa-school-officials-state-gender-identity-provision-overrides-title-ix-equality-for-girls-swim-teams/

Montana hunter and attorney Roberta “Bobbi” Zenker, who after fifty years of life as a heterosexual married man and father of two decided in 2007 to become transgendered, testified before the committee that he believes men like himself who wish they were female should have the right to expose their penis to females in places of sex-segregated public nudity- and they should exercise discretion as they see fit. “The fact is that I am pretty modest and my experience with trans people is that they are pretty modest too.” Zenker stated.

Good for Helena Montana for passing discrimination protections for LGBT people which also take into account the rights of women and girls to not be subjected to men’s penises in women’s locker rooms and saunas. All males have a right to use facilities based on anatomical sex. What they wear, or how they think of themselves should have no bearing on this. And women and girls have the right to privacy in sex-segregated areas of public nudity, and the right to be protected from male indecent exposure, regardless of what personal beliefs the male subscribes to. Kudos!

The anti-discrimination ordinance passed 5-0 and the final vote will be held on December 17.

Who’s that “lady”?

This “lady” is a man who calls himself Jennifer. Here is a video of him.

 

This man was declared legally “female” in Canada because he took some estrogen pills.

 

This man is an anti-abortion activist. Here he is protesting LGBT organizations because they support reproductive freedom for females.

Here he is making a video to protest the fact that Canadian medical authorities consider his sperm male, and apply the same guidelines to his sperm as all other men’s sperm, even though he is legally female. He feels this discriminates against his transgender right as a “woman” to impregnate actual females via sperm donation.

Here is this man contacting me on twitter.

This man is no lady. This man is not female. Men like Jennifer should not be given legal status “Female” because they took some estrogen pills. Stop “Gender Identity” Laws NOW!

Ex-Lesbian Chaz Bono becomes GOP Fundraiser

Ch Ch Ch Changes….

 

From Variety:

“Chaz Bono and Cindy McCain are among the eclectic list of co-hosts for a Los Angeles fundraiser on Sunday for Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.).

The $500-per-person event also includes former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and Richard Grenell as cohosts. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which Mack is a member, is listed as an honorary guest.

Mack is facing Democrat Raul Ruiz, a physician, who has received some support from industry donors including Sean Penn, something that Mack’s campaign has tried to make an issue of because of the actor’s support of leftward causes.”

Oh MY!