February 18, 2014
Christopher “Jessica” Hambrook, serial rapist, sexually assaulted and terrorized women after being placed in Toronto area Women’s Shelters
February 16, 2014
Hambrook’s fate will be decided by a judge next week as the court determines whether “she” will be deemed a chronic dangerous offender, a designation which will allow “her” to be incarcerated indefinitely.
Meanwhile, transgender activists held a public protest today in Toronto demanding that individuals like Hambrook be incarcerated with women in female facilities on the basis that they believe themselves to be “psychologically female”.
Two months ago, Canadian transgender activists protested a memorial for murdered women because Vancouver Rape Relief, which organized the event, maintains a domestic violence and rape counseling service for women that does not place female victims with males.
A senior citizen confronted with a “trans woman” in a Toronto YMCA women’s locker room who forced her to view his erect penis, and asked her “do you come here often?”- was recently told by authorities that males have an “absolute” legal right to placement in public areas traditionally sex-segregated for female safety, under new legal “Gender Identity” statutes, which override former sex-based protections for women and girls.
The elimination of women-only services and spaces where women are particularly vulnerable, such as homeless shelters, prisons, hospital bed assignment, areas of public nudity (such as locker rooms), is the primary goal of the transgender political rights movement. Also included are women’s sports, women’s colleges, women’s conferences, private women-only music festivals, lesbian events, etc.
TORONTO - A convicted sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters could be declared a dangerous offender this month.
Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — has attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.
Justice John McMahon will decide Feb. 26 whether to declare Hambrook a dangerous offender, which carries an indefinite prison sentence.
The prosecution is asserting Hambrook, a former stripper and escort from Quebec, simply cannot control his deviant sexual urges and that locking him up indefinitely is the best way to protect the public.
Hambrook, 37, pleaded guilty in February 2013 to two counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment involving two women — a deaf and homeless Quebec woman and a Toronto survivor of domestic violence — while he was living at a Dundas St. W. shelter and the Fred Victor women’s shelter in January and February 2012.
All of the victims’ names are covered by a publication ban.
Psychiatric and court records portrayed Hambrook as “hypersexual” and a sexual predator.
He couldn’t control his deviant urges, inside or outside of jail, sharing his sick sexual fantasies and irritating other inmates during a four-year prison sentence served in Quebec and Kingston.
He told grandiose lies, saying he once had a relationship with socialite Paris Hilton, earned $350,000 as an exotic dancer and that his mom died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
A self-described “heart breaker,” Hambrook said he’s had more than 80 male sexual partners in his lifetime, including “johns” in his prostitute days and that other inmates “made advances to him rather than vice-versa,” court heard.
After moving to Toronto in 2009, he boasted that he’d received more than 800 e-mails from old Montreal friends “begging him to come home” for sex and shopping sprees.
His latest crimes revealed a continuing trend of exploiting the vulnerable — this time women living at shelters.
The first victim, a deaf and homeless woman from Quebec, checked into the Fred Victor shelter on Jan. 8, 2012. Hambrook had been staying there as “Jessica” since Dec. 23, 2011. She was soon terrorized by Hambrook’s unwanted advances.
Hambrook wrote notes to the woman in French and learned both were smokers. Then, his notes took a creepy turn.
“He asked her if she preferred men and if she wanted a sex change. She started to feel uncomfortable around ‘Jessica’ and was nervous about her behaviour,” said Crown attorney Danielle Carbonneau, reading an agreed statement of facts when Hambrook entered his guilty plea in February 2013.
Hambrook made several unwanted sexual advances toward the woman over the next two or three days. He tried to isolate her in various rooms and she kept rebuffing him as she felt he was stalking her, court heard.
Hambrook stopped her once, grabbed her hand and placed it on his crotch. She yanked her hand away and said, “No.” Hambrook started talking about her breasts and invited her to touch his “fake breasts (he had none).” She became scared and had trouble sleeping as his room was across the hall.
The next day while she was in the shower, she noticed he was peering through the gap between the door and its frame. Hambrook vanished as soon as he realized she spotted him, court heard.
The second victim sought refuge at a Dundas St. W. shelter on Feb. 11, 2012, after suffering serious domestic abuse, court heard.
She remained there two weeks. Hambrook — who told people he was a transgender woman — was admitted there at the same time and ended up being his victim’s roommate.
Hambrook was sitting on a third-floor balcony, smoking a cigarette, when the victim went outside for a smoke. He invited her to sit beside him. When she did, he placed his hand on the bench so the woman would sit on it. She rose quickly, asking him what he was doing and he replied, “It’s a bum warmer. It’s also a boob warmer.” Troubled by his comments, she went inside.
When the victim found Hambrook was one of her three roommates, she had trouble sleeping. On Feb. 12, she left the shelter, consumed some drugs and returned to sleep.
Early on Feb. 13, she awoke to discover Hambrook standing behind her in his underwear, attempting to sexually assault her.
The victim shouted at him, demanding to know what he was doing. Hambrook “simply covered his face with his hands, said “Oops!” and started giggling, according to Carbonneau.
The woman reported the assault to police and Hambrook has been in custody since. His DNA was found on her nightwear.
Shortly after his mother died in Montreal in February 2002, Hambrook committed the first of his sex crimes by sexually assaulted a family friend’s five-year-old daughter. While on bail waiting for courts to deal with charges laid for that crime, he targeted a 27-year-old mentally challenged woman, by sexually assaulting her in his home and forcing her to smoke a joint.
Hambrook received two years in jail for each of those crimes, for a total of four years.
“He had no empathy, no remorse or understanding of his victims of his offences,” Toronto psychiatrist Dr. Treena Wilkie said in her assessment.
In childhood, Hambrook was diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and never made it through high school.
Wilkie diagnosed him with an anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, determined he was dependent on alcohol and drugs and had multiple sexual deviancies. He was rated as a high risk to re-offend sexually.
Hambrook was earlier assessed as suffering from bisexual pedophilia and exhibitionism.
He blamed his heavy drug use or his victims for his Montreal crimes. He stated the five-year-oldm victoim’s mother “had the hots for him” but he rejected her. The mom fabricated the crime to spite him, said Hambrook, despite pleading guilty to the crimes.
He asserted the mentally-challenged woman consented to sex.
In his psychiatric assessment, Hambrook provided conflicting information on his gender identity issue. He lied that he had been receiving hormone treatment for many years and lied that he wanted to pursue a sex change. He admitted he only dressed intermittently in women’s clothing and wanted to remain a man and have a relationship with a woman.
Psychiatric reports concluded Hambrook is not transgender.
“Mr. Hambrook’s conduct inflicted severe psychological damage on both victims,” said Carbonneau. “(They) sought refuge at Toronto women’s shelters at difficult times in their lives. They thought that they would be safe there, but instead, they were further victimized by the accused.”
February 15, 2014
February 12, 2014
It’s amazing how much political and media traction one man’s penis can get if that man claims to feel “psychologically female”.
What does it mean to be psychologically male or psychologically female? For the transgender lobby it means that certain thoughts, emotions, preferences, and intellectual abilities are tied to one’s reproductive capacity. This is called “gender”. If an individual’s “gender” does not match one’s sex, the trans politic insists that this “incongruence” represents a life-threatening social, psychiatric, and medical disorder- an emergency whose only cure is disguising one’s body using various modifications into appearing like the other sex.
Transgender people have every right to believe in this. Feminists and most lesbians and gays would instead characterize this belief as extreme sexism and homophobia based on sex-stereotypes that expired decades ago.
One might think that Transgender Rights would revolve around the right to live unaccosted while freely exercising one’s personal beliefs, as with religion. Instead, the transgender movement lobbies for the right to compel non-believers to act as if they also believe in “psychological sex” stereotypes and to re-structure their own lives, and society, accordingly. This seems like an absurd and overreaching goal, one that Christianists and Islamists have been failing at for ages, but the trans lobby has made surprising inroads at installing public policies enforcing their “psychological sex” stereotypes into law.
Transgenderism has succeeded where religionists (who also subscribe to “psychological sex” beliefs, not incidentally) have failed because the Transgender Rights movement is a men’s sexual rights movement based on expanding the rights of males to sexually exploit and control women.
Patriarchal religions merely seek to uphold male domination over females, to maintain the conservative status quo, while the transgender movement expands on the ability of men to subordinate women. In this sense it is an evolution in men’s rights. This expansion and evolutionary quality accounts for its popularity and rapid adoption by male power structures such as government, medicine, law.
A story you may have seen in media headlines this week shows just how incredibly powerful one man’s penis can become under the social movement of “Transgender”.
“My penis is more powerful than the cocks of a million alpha males all put together. ” – Cocky, by Julia Serano
Avery Edison is a young man who believes in “psychological sex” and believes himself to be “psychologically female”. His activities include attempting to become a stand-up comedian and writing blog posts expressing his anger at women who refuse to let him insert his penis into them.
Avery went to Canada on a student visa to take a college program on stand-up comedy, an endeavor funded by the parents of one of his girlfriends. He overstayed his visa before eventually returning to the UK. This week, for unknown impulsive reasons (perhaps because he felt like it and possessed enough incredible white male privilege that he had the expectation that his every magical wish would be accommodated), Avery decided to try to get back into Canada without first going through proper channels, even though he knew it was unlikely he would be let in.
He flew into Toronto’s Pearson International Airport somehow hoping to persuade officials to bypass immigration laws and allow him, unannounced and on the spot, to enter the country and visit his girlfriend. Not surprisingly (to anyone but Avery), his desire to enter the country did not override Canadian immigration law and procedure. Much like his anger at women who enforce a boundary against Avery’s right to stick his dick into them against their will, being subjected to Canadian border regulations (like everyone else) made Avery angry. Avery is a very entitled young man who does not anticipate being told “no” under any circumstance.
Avery began to tweet messages from the airport to his fellow “psychologically female” mates, conveying his upset at having his desires thwarted by the expected border regulations. These mates had a shared experience of being frustrated by common social boundaries that others accept as a fact of life: they were fellow members of the transgender political movement.
Avery was told that he had to turn around and fly home. But he was so angry! And so close to meeting his goal of seeing his girlfriend! He realized that if he refused to leave he would be incarcerated, which would allow him to receive visitors, including his girlfriend. So his goal could be met after all. Which is what he chose to do. But he wasn’t going to let this go without kicking up a fuss. Which is what he did.
Avery started tweeting about how bystanders were refusing to act in accordance with his personal belief that he is “psychologically female” and instead were perceiving his sex objectively –as evidenced by his body- as male. He would be housed during his chosen incarceration with other male-bodied individuals, regardless of their psychology or beliefs. Equal treatment regardless of psychology or belief is considered an assault on one’s ego equivalent to physical battery, according to the transgender adherents. Referring to a “psychologically female” individual as a male-bodied person “is an act of violence”, stated keynote speaker Laverne Cox (himself a male by any objective measure) at last month’s Creating Change conference. NOW Avery’s twitter mates had something to sink their frustration into.
Within hours, a #FreeAvery twitter hashtag was created. Dozens of newspapers and websites worldwide ran headlines on the incident. Several Canadian MPs made public comment and pledged their support. Calls were made for Canadian legal reform: to allow any man who defines himself as “psychologically female” to be housed in female facilities (which are sex-segregated for the protection of women against the overwhelming tide of male sexual violence conducted by males who refuse to respect the boundaries and humanity of women). A public protest and rally was scheduled for this weekend to highlight the “unfairness” of all males being treated equally regardless of their personal psychology or belief. A fund was started for people to donate money to Avery. Pro bono legal representation was arranged.
All this, on the basis of one male’s “psychological sex” beliefs and his desire to bypass all the same rules that apply equally to everyone else. One heterosexual white man’s thwarted impulse. One man’s penis.
February 11, 2014
“Last night a friend and I were discussing the rise of SWERF and TERF, insults that are increasingly used against feminists who attack, not sex workers nor trans people, but gendered structures of oppression. Fear-based feminism would deny that these are insults at all. It would argue that the word “exclusion” is never used in vain. It would send tweets to itself and the world at large, using capital letters: TERF IS NOT A SLUR TERF IS NOT A SLUR TERF IS NOT A SLUR. It would say “it’s descriptive,” all the while making note of the latest unsayables (gender is a construct, reproduction is a feminist issue, misogyny is associated with hatred of the female body). It would watch as all space for discussion and compassion collapsed in on itself. It would think “as long as I am safe. As long as I am neither SWERF nor TERF.”
Fear-based feminism is all about attacking individuals, not intersecting structures of oppression. “Kick up, not down.” Just as long as you’re kicking someone, and as long as the person being kicked isn’t you. As long as you are the one saying “STFU” and “sit down” and “cis white feminist tears” and shaking your damn head at someone else’s supreme ignorance. As long as you are not creating (because you might create the wrong thing!). As long as you are knocking down.
A critique of gender, objectification, sex work and reproductive oppression within the context of “being a woman” should be within the scope of anyone’s feminism. And yet, if I were a younger feminist – if I didn’t already have the support of other feminists — I would be too frightened to have written that sentence. I would think it was easier left unsaid. Best focus on the surface and the individual. I would not trust myself with more, and I’d be scared of ever wavering from this. I would want to be a good girl, one who swears and fucks in all the right places, wishes suffering on the right people, says “sorry” to those she fears and “die, scum” to those whom she doesn’t want to be. I would tweet SWERF IS NOT A SLUR SWERF IS NOT A SLUR SWERF IS NOT A SLUR. I would have no faith in my own ability to listen and make my own moral judgments. I’d be bloody terrified of ever getting this wrong, and I’d be right to be.”
Read the rest of this post by clicking the link above.
A woman in Oregon is suing an employer for financial compensation to repair her emotional distress after co-workers used female pronouns when referring to her instead of the unique pronoun she requested.
Plaintiff Valencia Jones is a female genderist. Genderists are social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, or transgender individuals who believe that reproductive sex should be defined not by biology but “Gender Identity” based on one’s belief in antiquated social sex roles. Pink princess for girls, monster trucks for boys.
Most women who reject sex-roles for women would be considered feminists, or gender abolitionists. Instead Jones, as a transgenderist, believes that cultural stereotypes linking certain behaviors, emotions, and abilities to reproductive function (Math for boys, English for girls) should form the basis for sex designation, not objective biology. By the genderist view, if a woman rejects a subordinate social role she is no longer reproductively female. She can either adopt a persona which pantomimes male dominance over other females and try to have her sex designated as male, or she can reject her subordinate role without adopting an oppressive male persona and try to have her sex designated as “anything but female”. That is what Valencia has tried (and failed) to do.
The problem with Valencia’s genderism is that one cannot “will away” sex-based oppression of females because our oppression is based on our biological reproductive function which is static and cannot be “identified away”. Valencia could try to disguise her biology and “pass” as male to avoid reproduction-based oppression. She could even have her reproductive system surgically removed, but this will not eradicate the social sex-based class status “female”. She will retain the pre-intellectual social conditioning she has been indoctrinated with since birth and she will also be placed back into the subordinate female caste whenever her actual sex is known.
Transgenderism is a political movement based on relaxing the social norms required by men to maintain social dominance over women. It is an adjustment of social norms designed to allow men greater freedom: the freedom to perform male-designed “femininity” (subordinate status inflicted on females by male violence) for each other, for sport, for shits and giggles, for sexual excitement, for unrestricted access to female spaces, while maintaining strict superiority over women.
Women and girls cannot identify our way out of sexual oppression by males. We can try to hide our reproductive capacity by disguising ourselves as male but once that disguise fails we are back to being members of the sex oppressed class. In the same way, men disguised as women can access their dominant male birthright at any time of their choosing merely by revealing their actual sex.
Fealty to gender (“Gender Identity”) will never benefit women, only men. Subordinate female social roles will never benefit women, only men. Women seeking to “other” themselves from the female sex caste by embrasure of male social roles of dominance over females will never benefit. There is no escape. There is no “identifying out of” or rejection of sex for women, only for men, at their leisure.
February 9, 2014
submitted by k-transpost op exercise nut
I’m happy. My top and bottom are done. I’ve had FFS. I’ve had laser treatments. I got hair implants. I work out enough that I’m finally getting the slender, feminine body I’ve always wanted. I’m married. We have money and live comfortably. Life is finally great.
My husband is a dermatologist. His partner at his practice is older, in his late 50s. Last night, we went to his house for a Super Bowl party. He and his wife have a 23-year-old daughter who recently graduated from college. She’s working full time, but living at home.
I irrationally hate this girl. I mean, not in the way most women hate other women, like admiring her proportions, wishing they were mine, that kind of thing. It’s almost like, “I fucking hate you because you got the life I always wanted.” It’s not a pass/don’t pass thing. She got the life I always wanted. The princess bedroom. The prom dress.
Seeing her is such a trigger for me. Like I said, my physical transformation is done. I’m usually pretty happy. My life is great. But when I see this girl I get so angry, and it’s a mix of what I said above and these overwhelming desires just to have angry, passionate sex with her.
I love football, but I couldn’t even enjoy the game. When I got home, I cried in the shower for about half an hour.
Please tell me I’m not the only one.
Ah, yes. The “Do I want to fuck you, kill you or be you?” envyragecrush. Yeah, that’s a thing. Not even just a trans thing, though I think we’ve probably got some special self-loathing twists of our own that we can put on it.
The only cure I know of is getting drunk, listening to Bikini Kill at high volume and dancing around in your underwear.
[From Reddit.- GM]