July 15, 2014
Originally posted on Privilege Denying Tranny:
In what world can a politician graphically describe a journalist being the crusty “smegma” inside of a m2t’s neo-vag, actively campaign to get said journalist ‘no platformed’ at speaking engagements, publicly state that he thinks men should flout the laws of the country he’s sworn to up hold as a politician in order to procure black market estrogen and not get called out for it? Well a S.C.A.M. of course!
Enter in the sucking black hole that is Sarah Brown. After a crushing defeat by the labor party in the UK’s recent election cycle, Brown has found himself out of a job. And what do men do when they loose? Lash out at anyone and everyone possible, while simultaneously building a case why they’re not responsible for their own actions.
“Aunty” Sarah has been constructing an argument that “Terfs” have been “hounding him” to have a nervous breakdown over the…
View original 922 more words
Denver State Women’s Wellness Center now to offer cervical cancer screenings to men who feel like they are female
April 3, 2014
“DENVER — A state-run women’s wellness program now provides breast and cervical cancer screenings for transgender women, announced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wednesday.”
Since sexism no longer matters, plaintiffs try using “gender identity” to win relief from sexist injury
August 12, 2013
“I lean more towards the feminine spectrum, but I do ovulate between masculine and feminine. It just depends on the day, girl!” – B. Scott, explaining his gender suit.
There was a time when lawyers filed actions against individuals and organizations that discriminated against their clients based on sex. Some of these cases involved damages caused by institutions or officials who illegally discriminated via enforcement of sexist stereotypes. These cases were usually brought on behalf of women. Examples include women who were not promoted due to their failure to exhibit ritualized behaviors of submission not required of their male coworkers , women who were required to don sexualized uniforms and maintain specific, expensive (unpaid) time-consuming body grooming and face-painting regimes as a condition of workplace readiness not required of male co-workers.
These lawsuits were filed on the grounds that sex-stereotyping is discriminatory against women, and when institutionally or officially enforced, illegal.
The current age of profound political backlash against the rights of women has resulted in a reinvigoration of state, official and institutional codification of sexual stereotypes (“gender”) as a legally protected form of discrimination now framed as a personal belief or “faith”. As such, sex discrimination has been re-classified as a state-protected institutional and personal “value”.
The new form of sex-based discrimination has elevated the sex-stereotype to a protected legal category that eclipses sex itself. Claims of sex discrimination are now opposed by the new protected “right to believe in” sex discrimination. This new protected form of sex stereotyping is called “gender” or “gender identity”. The legal creation of “Gender Identity” is identical to the old form of discriminatory sex stereotyping except that it now protects and codifies the “right to stereotype” while providing limited recourse against sex discrimination to individuals that publicly, formally pledge belief in sex stereotypes. Examples include statutes which allow males to displace females in state education Title IX sports programs on the basis that the males believe themselves to possess thoughts, feelings, and behaviors sex-stereotyped as female.
What then will become of those claims formerly filed under now eliminated sex discrimination protections? Two recent actions provide us with a clue.
Fashion pundit and femme gay male internet personality B.Scott filed a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit against Viacom and the BET cable network last week after an incident which took place during his July appearance on the pre-show for the BET Awards. Scott claims he was pulled off the air and told his clothing did not adhere to the company’s sex-based dress policy. He states that he was forced to change outfits to one that BET producers deemed appropriate for males based on sex-stereotypes. These actions resulted in alleged damage to Scott’s reputation due to an interruption of his performance, wrongful termination, loss of income, and emotional distress due to the unlawful infliction of discriminatory wardrobe policies based on sex. However since sex-stereotyping is now a protected legal category Scott’s attorney recommended filing suit on the basis of “Gender Identity” discrimination. One problem: Scott has no record of ever making public pledge or testimony of a personal transgender belief or “identity”. On the contrary, Scott has always maintained a strong pride in himself as a flaming gay man. As part of his lawsuit, Scott was forced to make a public statement adopting a personal “gender identity” and proclaiming himself to be transgender.
“Over the years my love muffins and strangers alike have questioned me about my gender identity. What IS B. Scott? As a society we’ve been conditioned to believe that a person has to be ‘exactly’ this or ‘exactly’ that. Biologically, I am male — as my sex was determined at birth by my reproductive organs.
However, my spirit truly lies somewhere in between. It is that same spirit that has allowed me to become so comfortable in my skin, choose how I express myself, and contributes to how I live my day-to-day life.
Transgender is the state of one’s gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one’s assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). [source]
It is by that definition that I accept and welcome the ‘transgender’ label with open arms.
It is also by that definition that BET and Viacom willingly and wrongfully discriminated against my gender identity during the 2013 BET Awards Pre-Show.”
B.Scott’s announcement did not sit well with many in the transgender community who disputed the authenticity of his newly declared protected gender beliefs. Longtime trans activist and Transgriot blogger Monica “Fishy” Roberts (who believes he is female and refers to his penis as a “six inch neo-clitoris”) tweeted “When B Scott starts taking hormones and calling himself Brittany (or another femme name starting with ‘B’) and declares he’s transitioning then I’ll consider him part of Team Trans.”
Roberts and others rightfully observe that Scott’s sudden public testimonial of his newly adopted Gender Identity beliefs appears insincere and mercenary. However unlike an individual who suddenly proclaims Judaism to access a protected legal right to compel an employer to give them the day off for Passover, the protected legal category of Gender Identity requires no evidence of authenticity. Duration of belief, performance of rituals, membership in a faith affinity group are objective criteria used to parse self-declared legally protected personal belief identities. Gender Identity requires no such objective criteria. Anyone can claim it at any time, even retroactively, purely on the basis of personal report of one’s feelings. Gender Identity offers legal protection to anyone who is willing to declare at any time that they:
- possess intellectual, psychological or behavioral characteristics which fail to conform to social stereotypes based on reproductive sex,
-believe such non-reproductive traits are inextricably caused by reproductive biology,
-draw the conclusion that reproductive biology itself is therefore not objectively observable.
This new protective legal status for “sex-deniers” has undermined, if not removed, the grounds for claims based on sex discrimination, or at least provided cover for the lack of political will to enforce anti-discrimination claims of women, who are overwhelmingly the victims of such sex discrimination. It is little wonder that femme gay man Scott decided not to pursue remedy via sex-discrimination suit although that is obviously what he was a victim of if his account of events is factual.
Instead of asserting his right to dress as he wished regardless of sex, Scott’s representatives found it more advantageous in this legal environment to argue that Scott’s right to wardrobe hinged on his self-concept of himself as reproductively (partially) female.
In Quebec last month, management consultant and butch lesbian Tommi Sojourner filed a Judicial complaint on the grounds of “Gender Identity” after an incident of apparent sex-based harassment that occurred in a bizarre courtroom exchange with a judge who insisted on referring to the claimant as male over and over and over again, even after correction by Sojourner and opposing counsel over a dozen times. Sojourner, who does not perform femininity, expressed that being repeatedly referred to as male – after multiple corrections- based on her failure to conform to female sex-stereotypes was insulting, sexist, and deliberately harassing. Further, she alleges that her case was not given an objective hearing due to judicial bias based on her sex-role nonconformity. This is sex discrimination. It is discriminatory for a judicial official to insist that a woman is actually a male due to the fact that she fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of dress and behavior and it is harassment to continue to do so after being corrected more than a dozen times.
Sojourner’s claim rests on the fact that she is not transgendered. If she was a genderist she would have been well pleased by the judge’s repeated cross-sex identification of her, based on sex-stereotypical norms. Regardless, in the post-sex legal landscape where “sex-denial” is itself a protected category, her attorney thought it expeditious to utilize a Gender Identity claim vs. a sex discrimination case. By this erasure Sojourner was not discriminated against as a woman based on sex, or as a lesbian, but on the dis-acknowledgement of her own personal free-floating self-concept of herself as (like Scott) inhabiting “femaleness“.
If sex does not exist, sex discrimination does not exist. Class-action litigation based on sex does not exist.
With the elimination of the legal category of sex and the removal of sex-stereotyping as an actionable wrong, litigants have no choice but to seek protection under “Gender Identity” on the basis that formerly discriminatory (now protected) sex-stereotypes are being incorrectly applied to them based on personal testimony of their self-reported, objectively unobservable, sex reproductive “self-concept”.
This is legal political feminist backlash circa 2013.
File this one under “unintended consequences” for Lesbians, Gays, and Women’s Rights advocates living in Ontario. MPP Cheri DiNovo announced Friday that bill C-389, “Toby’s Act”, the 2012 bill she sponsored which intended to protect the rights of transgender persons, actually makes all same-sex gatherings illegal in the province. This will come as some surprise to many lesbians and gays who often exercise their rights to assemble freely in meetings, conferences, and social groups with other same-sex persons. In addition, DiNovo claims the right of Ontarian women to assemble in any same-sex gatherings: whether they be reproductive rights orgs, Islamic faith gatherings, or lesbian support groups- has been eliminated by her bill. She has appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Council to back up her legal position.
DiNovo made her announcement in response to male complaints surrounding a small group of feminists holding a female-only meeting in a Toronto art gallery. DiNovo characterized same-sex meetings as “reprehensible” and vowed to use Toby’s Act to eliminate and prosecute current and future same-sex gatherings of women or lesbians in the province. “I’m hoping that now under Toby’s law, this will be considered illegal.”
Somehow I doubt this was the intent of the women, lesbians and gays who supported DiNovo and the passage of Toby’s Act. Like Washington State’s Colleen Francis using that state’s non-discrimination act to exercise his “right” to expose his penis to schoolgirls in women’s locker rooms, Toby’s Act had the unintended consequence of eliminating the rights of women, gays, lesbians, muslims, feminists, to hold same-sex gatherings. Presumably this also eliminates the rights of transgender people to assemble in sex-segregated meetings, although DiNovo has not yet clarified that point. Planned Parenthood Toronto sponsored “Breaking Through The Cotton Ceiling” seminars for transgenders to strategize how to convince lesbians to accept sex with penises. The “cotton ceiling” in that case referred to the underwear of lesbians. These public meetings were restricted to male transgenders only.
Canada faces another set of unintended consequences with Bill C-279, the Federal Gender Identity Act, which is set for a vote in the next legislative session. This bill, like Toby’s Act, purports to eliminate discrimination based on “Gender Identity”, which is the right to identify with the social role of the opposite sex. Obviously this proposed new legal “sex-role” status is problematic for those – such as feminists and progressives- who believe stereotypes based on sex are antiquated, sexist, offensive, (not to mention they sanction inequality for women and girls). Many feel the government should not promote the belief that citizens should look/behave/think certain ways based on our reproductive sex (or our identification with the opposite sex). But what are the other, specific, legal consequences of Bill C-279, which like the erosion of women’s and gay rights to assemble caused by DiNovo’s Toby’s Act, might not become apparent until after the law is passed?
According to Senator Nancy Ruth, the first lesbian Senator in Canada, we already know what some of the unintended consequences of Bill C-279 will be. From the DailyExtra:
“Women and girls in Canada are not protected from hate speech under the Criminal Code, and this bill does not rectify that when it could,” Ruth said.
“For 35 years, across numerous bills, Parliament has told the girls and women of Canada that, despite alarming rates of violence against girls and women, violence that typically includes hate speech, they are not worthy of protection,” she explained.
“The omission is not an oversight. In 1985, the federally appointed Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution said that there was ‘ample evidence’ indicating women were the targets of hate material. The committee recommended that the Criminal Code hate laws be amended to extend protection to women, but no Parliament has done that. Why? I have spoken before in this chamber about this gap in the law,” she continued.
“This bill will privilege men who choose to become women over women who are born female,” Ruth said. “While I do not question the good intentions of the sponsor and the supporters of the bill, I simply do not understand how they could advance this bill without including all women. Passage of Bill C-279 will mean that only if a woman is born a man who later chooses to identify as a woman will she receive protection, but a woman born a woman will not receive the same protection.“
Senator Ruth has proposed an amendment to Bill C-279 which simply maintains “sex” as a protected status along with “gender identity”. This will prevent sex-based protections for women from being eliminated by Bill C-279, in the way that Toby’s Act inadvertently eliminated the legal rights of women and lesbians to free assembly.
Women of Canada must not lose human rights in order to protect the rights of transgender people, due to sloppy lawmaking. The battle to reclaim women’s human right to assemble- that DiNovo claims was lost by the passage of Toby’s Act- will now start its long winding legal trail towards correction, after the fact. With Bill C-279 we have an opportunity to correct an unintended consequence before it occurs, and we have a lesbian Senator making a stand for our rights, right now. Do not leave her standing alone. She needs your support on this issue. Please organize to support Senator Ruth’s amendment now. Create awareness of the issue among women’s groups and legislators. Write letters to the editor. Contact her office and ask what you can do to help.
Let us protect the rights of all Canadians. Including the rights of Women and Girls.
[bolding by me-GM]
A few recent governmental flip-flops on policies enshrining gender (the social stereotypes based on sex that ritualize male dominance and female subordination) illustrate the politics involved in passing such broad-sweeping yet ill-considered measures.
The first odd policy reversal was the decision in Nova Scotia, widely reported by CBC news and other sources, that the Health Ministry had decided not to fund radical cosmetic surgical procedures based on gender roles. From the CBC:
“After studying the issue, Health Minister David Wilson said in a letter last week that the province has decided not to fund the surgery.
“When we must decide which areas to fund, there are a number of items to consider. For example, what does the best available research tells us, and are we able to fund a service within our limited healthcare budget,” said Wilson.
“The department has given the matter of gender reassignment surgery considerable consideration and we went through a careful policy review, including extensive research and consultation with other jurisdictions.”
The CBC reported:
“Wilson said there’s a lack of high-quality research about the effectiveness and long-term outcomes of sex reassignment surgery.
He said the decision to deny coverage came after a careful policy review and is declining interviews until after he meets with NSRAP [Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project] on Wednesday.”
The very NEXT DAY the policy was reversed. From CTV Atlantic News:
“The Nova Scotia government says the province will soon fund gender reassignment surgery .
Health and Wellness Minister David Wilson said he came to the decision after reviewing the medical evidence and the policies of other provinces that fund this procedure.
“Based on the values and direction this government has taken on the issue, I am happy today to confirm funding for gender reassignment surgery,” said Wilson.
“Last November, the province enshrined transgender rights in legislation. We don’t permit others to discriminate against transgender people, and the funding of this surgery is an issue of dignity, and equality for transgender Nova Scotians.”
Wilson said he met with members of the LBGTI community about the decision on Wednesday.”
The other big recent flip-flop involved the sweeping change to school athletic programming in Nebraska. Following widely reported news that sex-based protections for female athletes were being eliminated state-wide and replaced with “sex-role” or “gender” guidelines, it turns out that no such policy was ever approved after all. From Nebraska Watchdog reporter Deena Winter:
LINCOLN – Turnabout, it seems, doesn’t always equal fair play.
The head of a Nebraska board that governs school activities said the board has not yet voted on a policy protecting the rights of transgender athletes, a statement that appears to contradict what she told national media outlets such as the New York Times and Deadspin.
The group’s executive director, Rhonda Blanford-Green, had said the Nebraska School Activities Association passed a policy in December outlining a process to allow transgender student-athletes to change teams.
She now says her board of directors did not vote on the policy, as reported, and will do so in August.
Nebraska Watchdog reported last week the NSAA passed the policy, which sets up procedures for schools if transgendered students want to participate on the team they identify with – if a male student identifies as a female and wants to play on the girls’ team, for example.
But a member of the NSAA’s board of directors – the entity that supposedly passed the policy – told Nebraska Watchdog on Monday the transgender policy was discussed at the December meeting, but wasn’t voted on.
“We did not take action,” said Bob Reznicek, superintendent of schools for Boys Town schools. “Our understanding was we were going to vote on it in the spring.”
Reznicek, who has served on the NSAA board for 13 years, said the board typically discusses a policy one month and votes on it the next. He said he got a brief email from Blanford-Green on Monday confirming there was no official vote taken, so a vote would be taken at the board’s Aug. 21 meeting.
That is contrary to what Blanford-Green told multiple reporters. But this story has been odd from the start.
Stories about Nebraska’s transgender policy first appeared in the national press while few people in Nebraska seemed to know anything about it, until Nebraska Watchdog’s report came out last week. The policy was nowhere to be found in NSAA agendas or meeting minutes, although the policy itself could be found online.
But that online post has since been removed and replaced with a message from Blanford-Green saying the policy will be on the board’s August agenda to “eliminate any confusion on the transparency of the association or myself to formally address procedures for transgender participation within our board procedures.”
After other Nebraska media followed up on our story late last week, Blanford-Green told a Lincoln Journal Star reporter she proposed the policy to the board in November because she wanted to get it in the books before she appeared at a national conference on transgender student participation in sports.
Then, she told the Omaha World-Herald although the policy is on the books, it doesn’t appear in meeting minutes and would come back for “another vote” July 11 “to ensure that it is placed on official meeting records.” That date apparently has since been pushed back to Aug. 21.
Reznicek tells a different story.
“Yes, we did discuss it, but no, we did not vote on it,” he said. “Whenever we take official action, it should be in our official minutes.”
Whether this is the first or second vote on the policy – which apparently is up for debate – does he think it will pass?
“I don’t want to speculate on that,” he said. “I don’t think anybody’s necessarily opposed to it.”
When asked why the vote wasn’t recorded in meeting minutes, Blanford-Green told Nebraska Watchdog via email she wasn’t sure. “There was a discussion and acceptance,” she wrote, and the situation “will be rectified.”
Asked about Reznicek’s statement that the policy had not yet been approved, Blanford-Green said, “You spoke with a board member and they have provided you with the answer. I don’t think an additional comment from me on a board member’s response is necessary.”
The other seven NSAA board members did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
June 16, 2013
Janice Covington is confused.
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.
“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?
March 30, 2013
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.
March 30, 2013
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.
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.”
From the Washington Examiner:
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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]