Gender Identity Laws allow “Transwoman” to exhibit his erect penis in Toronto YMCA women’s locker room
January 19, 2014
Yet another example of the “Colleen Francis” effect of Gender Identity laws and how they allow men to inflict sexual abuse on women and girls in locker rooms and other sex-segregated areas of public nudity. In this instance, a 70 year old woman described what happened to her in a question she sent to the advice column of her local newspaper, the Toronto Star:
“I am a senior woman. Recently, a “man” claiming to be transgender, who had not yet begun physical treatments, was permitted by our local Y to use the women’s locker room. There are no secure change rooms. The person they allowed in was not courteous and stared at me while I struggled out of a wet bathing suit. He was naked, had an erection and playfully asked ‘do you come here often?’ I understand that gender is no longer judged solely by genitalia, but does a brief contact with the duty manager mean that men not yet committed to gender reassignment are free to disrobe anywhere they choose?”
Did transgender activists respond with concern and address the fact that Gender Identity protections remove the rights of women to be free from male sexual abuse in public areas? No. Instead, they claimed that the sexual assault was a “false claim by right-wingers” and “a hoax”, the same way anti-feminist men blame rape victims by citing “false rape claims”. Did transactivists like Autumn Sandeen and Cristan Williams express an ounce of empathy or concern for the elderly woman abused by the “transwoman”? No they did not. They accused the woman of making a false claim, calling her a liar, for no other reason except that they would rather allow women and girls to be sexually abused than address the way Gender Identity laws eliminate rights and protections for women and girls.
Likewise, the advice columnist who responded to the woman’s letter advised her that Gender Identity laws allowed men “the absolute right” to exhibit their penises in women’s locker rooms, and that basically she should get used to it. He kind of waffled a bit on the erection part, deeming it “unacceptable” – but providing no clear measure to legally halt the behavior. And if erect penises are “unacceptable” but non-erect ones are “an absolute right” for strange men to inflict on women and girls in YMCA locker-rooms, then what about the partially erect? Is that “partially unacceptable”? Or an “absolute right”? The male advice columnist doesn’t explain. “You’re on your own, toots! Sucks being you!” the guy seems to say, like the transgender activists, assigning no value or concern to the female experience of male sexual assault. The issue raised by the woman’s question -namely that any man at any time can claim to be transgender to access the women’s change room to freely abuse women sexually, as was done to her, was poo-pooed and the victim was lectured on the importance of men’s sexual rights.
In fact, the whole matter was dropped, with the columnist hand-waving away female sexual assault and the transactivists doing the same (but calling the woman a liar as well) until transactivists began also claiming that the newspaper should not in future publish any sexual assault claims from any woman, ever, if the male perpetrator invokes a Gender Identity. The Toronto Star eventually decided that ongoing transactivist accusations that the victim falsified her claims reflected badly on the paper, having published them. So after two weeks of allowing transgender activists to rail heartlessly against a 70 year old victim of a sexual assault, the Star finally published a rebuttal today titled “Transgender Rights Letter No Hoax”.
Star editor Kathy English writes:
“I can tell you I have telephoned and talked to the North York woman whose name is on the email sent to Star ethics columnist Ken Gallinger in October. I have also confirmed that the YMCA of Greater Toronto received a similar letter from a former member in late fall. Last week, an executive of the organization contacted the same North York woman I talked with.
If this woman’s letter was a hoax perpetuated by organized forces opposed to transgender rights, as many in the transgender community through North America and beyond have declared with all certainty, then it is indeed a grand and elaborate one played on both the Star and the YMCA.
The woman would not agree to come forward publicly for this column. She spoke confidentially to me, in line with her expectation of confidentiality in the ethics column. “I am asking the Star to protect my privacy,” she said. “I would not rest easy if any group decided to approach me personally.”
She told me she is 70. She said the incident she described in her letter to Gallinger in which a naked “man” claiming to be a transgender woman behaved inappropriately happened “a couple of years ago” in the late afternoon in the women’s locker room of the Toronto Y on Sheppard Ave.
She said she shared her concerns with the Y manager at the time but felt she was not taken seriously. She said the branch manager contacted her in the fall after she sent her letter and she was again contacted by a senior executive of the Y following publication of the Star column.”
“She felt she was not taken seriously”. It is no surprise the victim is still seeking answers after the traumatizing sexual assault that has been ignored, dismissed, and “not taken seriously” again and again and again. By the YMCA. By transactivists. By the ethics advice columnist at the local newspaper, Ken Gallinger,who actually wrote an entire column today expressing his “deep resentment” that allowing women to report the sexual assaults that men commit MAY MAKE MEN LOOK BAD. Disgusting! Truly disgusting. It would not be surprising if the victim was still traumatized every time she stepped into a locker room to disrobe. It would not be surprising if she felt stressed by the prospect of her granddaughters using the locker room at the YMCA, or anywhere else where Gender Identity laws erase the rights of women and girls to privacy, including the right to be free from strange males forcing us to view their erections as they watch us struggle to change out of a wet bathing suit in a public locker room.
Transgender activist and self-described “post-transsexual woman” Jillian Page, offers a cautionary tale in a series of columns addressing potential outcomes of sex-role noncompliant male teens using the same restrooms as other male teens. Page starts off warning parents that their sons may become homosexual:
“Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that MtF trans kids are prevented from using the girls’ facilities. Back-slapping victory for the anti-trans side, yes? Hmm . . . maybe not. You see, the trans kids still need to use the washroom. They’re certainly not going to pee and defecate in the school yard, right? They have to go somewhere. So, how will the anti-trans parents feel when their sons are sharing bathroom space with an MtF kid — a trans girl — who looks smashing in her short skirt, heels and blouse? (You see, just because the referendumites stopped the trans kids from using girls’ facilities doesn’t mean they will stop presenting in the clothing that matches their gender identity.) How will the parents feel if their sons fall for said trans girls? Yup. It’s bound to happen . . . right there in the school bathroom: a modern-day version of Romeo and Juliette with a transgender twist (see update at the top of this post). Not that there is anything wrong with a teenage boy falling for a teenage trans girl.
What probably wouldn’t happen, though, is the sons of those anti-trans parents committing acts of violence against the trans girls in the bathrooms, because school authorities would be very vigilant about that sort of thing. But the authorities certainly couldn’t — and wouldn’t — stop love in bloom . . .
Oh, the games people play . . .
Maybe the anti-trans folks should just let it be. They can’t stop transgenderism. Better to let the few trans kids out there use the facilities that match their gender identity.”
Jillian Page’s multi-post reverie culminates in his authoring a ONE ACT PLAY [this is not a joke!] titled:
“California Dreamin: Love, Transgender Style”
Characters: “a mother and father, 15-year-old son named Joseph and 14-year-old daughter named Jessica”
Setting: “It is set in the dining room of a modest, middle-class bungalow in Los Angeles, California. As the scene opens, mother, father and son are sitting at the dinner table, while daughter is standing by the china cabinet. A radio is playing oldies music in the background, at this moment, California Dreamin’ . . .)
November 8, 2013
Here is an example of this “science” at work:
September 6, 2013
25 year old Lewiston Idaho resident Alberto Robledo was served trespassing papers in April for repeatedly using a supermarket restroom designated for women. The store received multiple complaints from female customers who were frightened by the man using the stall next to them. They knew he was a man because he faced the toilet standing up and urinated from his penis.
The women were afraid, if it needs stating, because females are subject to the constant threat of violent and sexualized predation by males for their entire lives. They are particularly vulnerable in areas of public nudity or partial nudity such as restrooms. Public areas where women disrobe, or partially disrobe, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital rooms, jail cells, etc. are sex-segregated for the sole purpose of limiting sexual violence against females by males.
Hearing a man voiding in the next stall was alarming to female patrons because they were unexpectedly and suddenly forced to be partially disrobed and vulnerable in the presence of a man without their consent in an area specifically designated to prevent that very thing from occurring. They also logically surmised that the particular man in question was either the sort of individual who willfully chooses to violate female protective space (therefore making him more likely to be the type of male who perpetuates sexual violence against women) or a male exhibiting the mental incapacity to apprehend social boundaries relative to female vulnerability to male sexual violence (therefore making him more likely to be capable of sexual violence against women).
Anyway you look at it, Alberto displayed behavior of the type exhibited by males who are at high risk of committing violence against women, and the women reported his alarming behavior to store security.
From the April NewYorkDailyNews report:
“A transgender woman whose use of a women’s restroom in an Idaho grocery store reportedly upset other customers has been cited for trespassing and banned from the store for a year, police said on Friday.
A Rosauers supermarket in Lewiston asked police to charge 25-year-old Ally Robledo, who was born male but identifies as female, with the misdemeanor trespass charge on Monday, Lewiston Police Captain Roger Lanier said.
“The store security officer said he had been dealing with a problem over a couple days with the person going into the women’s restroom and urinating while standing up,” Lanier said.
He added that the store had reported that Robledo’s use of the restroom made other female customers “very uncomfortable.”
Robledo said she was being discriminated against.
“I’m a female trapped in a man’s body. It’s natural for me to go to the ladies’ room. Getting the no trespassing order for a public restroom was really painful,” she said.”
Alberto explained to police who questioned him and his boyfriend (who was waiting outside the supermarket) that he believed himself, although male, to understand the experience of being female (an assertion belied by his inability to relate to the rational, everyday female concerns about male sexual predation and violence). Further, he declared that his internal subjective beliefs about females should override the legal right of women to maintain boundaries in sex-segregated areas of public nudity. He claimed that the women he frightened were legally discriminating against his feelings and personal beliefs about women.
LGBT advocacy groups funded by males -such as GLAAD- agreed with Alberto. They lobbied on his behalf to eliminate protections for females against male predation in areas of public nudity. They prioritized Alberto’s expression of his feelings about women (his male conception of what it feels to be female) over harm reduction measures (such as sex-segregated areas of public nudity) designed to stem the cross-generational international global epidemic of sexualized male violence against females. GLAAD agreed that protecting women against male violence legally discriminates against male feelings.
Transgender males (“transwomen”) are male. They commit violence against females at the same epidemic rate as other males. Transgender rates of male violence and sexualized violence against females does not decrease after “sex-change”, even among male transgenders who are chemically or surgically castrated.
At least one study- of the San Franciso transgender population- alleges that criminality among male transgenders is higher than any other social demographic, bar none. Male “transwomen” murder more female victims than all the combined male victims (some of whom were murdered by other “transwomen”) somberly commemorated by the candlelight vigils at the annual “Transgender Day of Remembrance”.
Our male “victim” of female harm reduction against male violence, Alberto, was charged this week with battery. He did it. He admits it. He blames the woman for his violence against her because his honor was offended. She correctly identified him as a homosexual male.
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.
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 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.
“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.”
“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.
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.
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.
September 17, 2012
Vancouver Washington resident Norman Ballhorn claims he has the right to be present where women change their tampons and perform other private restroom functions. The basis of his claim is his assertion that his sexual fetish: impersonating females and a lifetime of autogynephillic crossdressing – gives him the grounds to claim the legal status of “female” to bypass the rights of women in areas segregated by sex to protect them from just the sort of prurient objectification that is the basis of his claim.
This week Norman filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission against the tavern “Legend’s Food and Fun” for respecting the rights of female customers who protested his presence in the women’s restroom.
From a weekend article in the Vancouver WA Columbian:
“Vancouver resident Norma Ballhorn has worked hard to become a woman. She takes a concoction of hormones, changed her name from “Norman” to “Norma,” updated her driver’s license to reflect her female identity and wears clothing with feminine embellishments, such as butterfly sleeves. But Ballhorn, 56, still isn’t allowed to use the ladies room at three Clark County bars, she said.
She filed a complaint Monday against Legends Food & Fun with the State Human Rights Commission. She said she is considering filing complaints against Icehouse Bar & Grill and 3 Monkeys Pub on the same grounds.”
All three establishments have banned him from the women’s restroom after receiving multiple complaints from women customers. In at least one case he was removed by police officers after refusing to leave.
Bar owners have requested that Norman continue to use the same restroom he has always used while patronizing their establishments: the one designated for males. They have stated that Norman is welcome to drink in their bars the way he always has: while using the restroom designated for male-bodied persons.
Does Washington State have the right to force women bar patrons to change their tampons in the presence of Norman Ballhorn?
Ballhorn, 56, a retired ironworker, claims to have changed his name from Norman to Norma after his wife of 32 years divorced him. He still signs his name as Norman Ballhorn on internet crossdressing sites though, as recently as a few weeks ago. He claims to have had the legal marker on his driver’s license legally changed to “female”. He claims to be taking estrogen pills prescribed by the Veterans Administration since last November. I say “he claims” because in the article he also claims to be a Vietnam Veteran although in the comments thread that follows he is forced to admit that he has never been to Vietnam. Which seems to call his honesty in general into question.
The “Makeovers By Epifany” Facebook site which does crossdresser “make-overs” and whose tag-line is “Re-inventing Feminism From the Outside In” featured Ballhorn’s make-over for a “Mizz Gay Pride” contest- and stated that Ballhorn has also been banned from both male and female public restrooms at the trailer park in which he resides. No explanation is given.
Norman is a participant in a group for sexual crossdressing fetishists called Rose City T-Girls (and the organizer of the Vancouver T-Girls). The group clearly identifies itself as a sexual fetishists group, not a “gender identity” group: “Though we understand the T-Girl world is sexual in nature, we want to keep our postings tactful…” This group is for men who become sexually aroused by impersonating females. One of the activities Norman’s group does is take pictures of each other sitting on toilets in public restrooms and publishes them in youtube videos online for the enjoyment of other male sexual crossdressing and bathroom fetishists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STYjYGNrDGs&feature=channel&list=UL
Women DO NOT WANT the state to FORCE US to perform private bodily functions in the presence of male sexual fetishists like Howard Ballhorn. Women want to have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to PRIVACY FROM men like Norman Ballhorn. Women have a RIGHT to be free from male leers and objectification by creepy dudes when we pull down our pants to pee in a public restroom. That is why there are LAWS against men placing hidden cameras in our restrooms and men trespassing into our restrooms for IMPROPER PURPOSE. The fact that men like Norman are willing to wear a dress BECAUSE DOING SO SEXUALLY AROUSES THEM should not cause the state to OVERRIDE sex-based legal protections for females designed to help PROTECT US from MEN LIKE NORMAN.
August 15, 2012
Better watch this one quick. This 2009 video archive of the 16×9 news program featuring the John Fulton case was only uploaded yesterday but trans are already trying to censor it and prevent it from being viewed- by reporting it to YouTube as “promoting hatred and violence” (!) :
Fulton was the owner of an Ontario women-only gym (which had only one open shower and change area) who was dragged before the Ontario Human Rights Commission three years ago by man with a penis, Lisa MacDonald- who insisted it was his human right to parade his dick into the open women’s shower. Fulton lost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before MacDonald suddenly dropped his complaint. Since the Commission could not rule on the withdrawn complaint, Fulton had no resolution and no way to recoup his legal fees.
Case against John Fulton
In 2006, a transgendered woman (now known as Lisa MacDonald) visited Downtown Health Club for Women in St. Catharines, Ontario and asked owner John Fulton for Membership. MacDonald explained that she was actually a pre-operative Male-to-Female transsexual who was in the process of undergoing as sex-change operation, but for the time being, still possessed male gentalia. Fulton explained his concern that with only one change room and shower room in the club, admitting this individual would have meant allowing a man to observe the other patrons—all female—in various stages of undress. Approximately one week later, the individual filed a human rights complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination.
Fulton, and his lawyer Andrew Roman, argued that the Ontario Human Rights Code specifically permits facilities to serve a single sex on the grounds of public decency, and ordains that such restrictions do not constitute illegal discrimination. They also argued that that admitting the complainant would violate the rights of club members to freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fulton also questioned how he was supposed to distinguish the applicant from a voyeur or an exhibitionist.
Fulton stated that he received calls from his members threatening to quit if the transgendered individual was allowed to join before the sex-change operation was completed. Fulton also claimed that the OHRC told him he had to let the transgendered individual use the women’s facilities but refused to provide him with a clear answer on what his rights and the rights of his female clients were in this situation. Fulton also stated he never denied membership to the applicant and that she was welcome to use club once the sex-change operation was completed.
The case was scheduled for a hearing in late 2009. However, the individual then withdrew the complaint without explanation. As a result, Fulton was left with legal bills of roughly $150,000 and argued that he had been wrongly accused of being a discriminatory without being given a chance to respond. The Tribunal refused to compensate Fulton for any costs, stating that it lacked the authority to do so. In an interview with the St. Catharines Standard, Fulton stated that “They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it. There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”
In declining to provide award any costs to Fulton, The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s Alternate Chair Kaye Joachim wrote that:
- the HRTO had no authority to award costs;
- no costs against could be awarded against the complainant because Alternate Chair Joachim ruled that there was no abuse the complaint process;
- the complainant had “raised important and novel questions about the scope of the Code and its application to transgendered individuals.”;
- Fulton and his lawyers “may have caused unnecessary legal costs by raising spurious preliminary issues,” including constitutional arguments that were later dropped;
- Fulton party’s request that MacDonald produce her entire medical history was, in part, “completely irrelevant to the issues raised in the application.
Fulton’s lawyer, Andrew Roman disargeed with Joachim’s comments, adding that “I’ll be taking steps to deal with that…The way the tribunal is set up now, the complainant is rewarded for taking a risk-free grab at a big bag of money. Roman claimed that at the mediation stage, the “typical payoff” is often around $20,000 and that if a person “can’t work out a settlement at mediation, you go to a hearing and have to pay many times that.” Fulton also claimed that the Commission pushed him to pay MacDonald, stating that “They told me that I had to pay her legal fees, write a letter of apology admitting guilt and I could make it go away,” but he refused, stating that ” I didn’t know what to do and I wanted … a tribunal decision. I’m stubborn.” He also stated that “They’re picking on the wrong guy. The OHRC needs to be rejigged … before other people end up being in a situation where they feel like they’re being extorted.”
Karen Selick, the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation which supported Mr. Fulton, sharply criticized the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the process by which it handles complaints, writing in the National Post that:
“For complainants, the process is virtually risk-free. It costs them nothing to file a complaint, and the tribunal mediator will help explain the shakedown. If they want some legal help filing their complaint, they can get it gratis, at the taxpayer-funded Human Rights Legal Support Centre. And they never have to risk paying costs, no matter how ill-conceived or unjustified their complaint was. Heads, the complainant wins; tails, the accused loses.”
In February 2009, Afroze Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) expressed support for the applicant, arguing that:
“The [Ontario Human Rights] code does not distinguish between transsexuals who are at different stages of transition.. I think the important thing to remember there is how they identify themselves; what their sense is, that they are living as a man or living as a woman. Regardless of whether they’re preop or postop, it’s their lived gender that’s important.”
Interestingly, Kristen Worley- a male athlete and genderist who occupies a female slot in women’s cyclist rankings despite his male body – is interviewed in the program and comes out AGAINST the rights of males to inflict their penises on females in gym showers and change rooms.
Like I said: Watch it while you can!
Child Sex Predator Paul Ray Witherspoon, ticketed for using female restroom uses “Gender Identity” defense
May 4, 2012
From NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth: “A transgender woman who was ticketed for using the women’s restroom at a Dallas hospital says her status as a convicted sex offender should not play a role in the citation.”
Last Wednesday, 56 year old Paul Ray Witherspoon frightened a female hospital patient while using the women and girl’s restroom at Dallas Parkland Hospital while wearing a bulky ankle tracking device used for high risk parolees. The woman notified the police, who arrived at the scene and questioned the parolee, who offered that he is a serial child sexual predator now on monitored GPS tracking for his parole.
More from NBC 5: “Witherspoon said on Wednesday that her criminal past is no secret.
According to the Texas Public Sex Offender Registry, Witherspoon was convicted in 1990 for sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child involving sexual contact. Both victims were teenage girls.
But according to the Texas Attorney General website, Witherspoon was arrested again in 2011 for for a parole violation for sending nude pictures of himself through the Internet.
Last Wednesday, when the officer asked Witherspoon, whose driver’s license records him as male, why he was using the female restroom Witherspoon informed the officer that he had recently become transgendered, and was therefore permitted to access private women and girls facilities due to his internal feeling of “gender identity”. The officer cited him for disorderly conduct, a class C misdemeanor. The woman who reported him to police has not yet released more information about the incident, citing the fact that she is “afraid“.
Paul Ray Witherspoon, calling himself “Paula”, claimed he was at the hospital accompanying his “husband” Billy Lorentz to an appointment. However since Texas resident Witherspoon is legally male as is his partner, and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage that claim is called into question. Lorentz is listed as Witherspoon’s employer on his TX sex offender record.
The DallasVoice reports that Witherspoon said he offered to show the investigating officer a “carry letter” from his psychiatrist stating that he is transgender, and that the officer declined. A photo of the letter is reprinted here. But as you can see, the letter was written two days AFTER Witherspoon was cited.
Lambda Legal representative Ken Upton claims that pedophilic male serial sex offenders should be allowed to access private women and girls facilties regardless of legal gender status as long as the men are “using the bathroom in a way that is consistent with the gender that they live in day in and day out”. Upton did not qualify what objective measure would record the internal feelings or behaviors of convicted predators or what would indicate that predators “live in a gender” day in and day out.
Lambda Legal’s Upton went on to suggest that males who groom or wear clothing in ways that may be seen as nontraditionally masculine may actually be considered “disruptive” or even qualify as “disorderly conduct” for using male facilities designed for their actual sex :
““If you want to talk about disorderly conduct, you have to wonder which would cause more of a disruption — her going into the women’s restroom and using it with other women or going into the men’s restroom dressed the way she was, whether that would have been any better,” he said.”
As a butch lesbian, I find it shocking and inappropriate that an LGBT advocacy group like Lambda Legal suggests that legally male serially convicted child sexual predators should be given free reign to enter private, protected spaces for women and girls on the basis of those male’s subjective claims of feeling an internal “gender identity”. Further, the assertion by Lambda Legal that males who do not adhere to cultural standards of masculinity would be considered “disruptive” in ANY male setting whatsoever is a claim that every gay and lesbian person should find deeply offensive.
Reporter Janet St James at Channel 4 KMOV St. Louis spoke to the female complaintant who called the cops on Witherspoon (she has thus far declined to issue a public statement) and states the woman is ‘still very upset about it”.
November 2, 2011
Total fucking skumbag baby raper Thomas Lee Benson claiming his “internal Jender identity” made him dress up like a woman and plonk himself into a hottub full of little girls in the women’s lockeroom, even though he is a designated predatory sex offender for raping elementary school girls, and forbidden to be near children. Claims his internal “female gender identity” made him do it. Says it’s his right to be around naked little girls- his preferred victims- cause his Gender Identity Rights say so!
There’s a puke inducing extended interview with the babygirl rapist at the bottom of this link, if you have the stomach for it.
Try this link if you want to see Trans peeps defending him in the comments. Even more puke inducing.
Eww the rapist pedophile goes on in the interview about how he trolls Lesbian bars because he’s obsessed with having sex with women who don’t want to have sex with him. He wants to have sex with Lesbians who don’t know he is male. Guess he trolls elementary school girls for rape and switches it up with targeting some Lesbians.
I won’t say what I hope happens to him, except that there’s no coming back from it. From my mouth to god’s ears.
October 17, 2011
Interesting little item out of Colorado over the weekend. News station KRDO Channel 13 reports that a woman was terrified by a man in the women’s restroom of a local shopping mall. She fled the scene and reported the incident to mall security to investigate. She was told that because of the 2008 “Gender Identity Protections” law passed in Colorado, the mall was unable to even question –much less report to police- any males who are trespassing in formerly sex-segregated women’s bathrooms. The reason given was that any males who like hanging out in women’s restrooms “might” claim internal “gender identities”, which presumably could result in mall security being sued for questioning such a man.
From the article:
“COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – One woman says she had a double scare at the Chapel Hills Mall bathroom on Wednesday. It was in the women’s facility near the Children’s Place.
She says a man was in the bathroom. She rushed to get help from mall security. The man was gone when they got the restroom. The woman also says she was told by security that they couldn’t restrain him unless he was doing something criminal. She says security told her it was because of a 2008 Colorado law.
Chapel Hills Mall wouldn’t directly confirm or comment on the complaint. They did send this statement on the law and how they follow it to the letter.
It states: “Chapel Hills Mall and their national security provider comply with all federal, state and local laws including the Public Accommodations Anti-Discrimination law amendments that became effective May 29, 2008. As will all public accommodations, which is defined as any place of business that offers sales or services of any kind to the public, Chapel Hills Mall is required to allow entry and services to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or transgender status. As outlined in the FAQ document produced by the State of Colorado for this law, individuals have the legal right to use gender-segregated services, such as public restrooms, appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth, without being harassed or questioned.“
Link with video:
Speaking of trans activists claiming this never happens, those who click the link will see not one but two comments from self-proclaimed “woman with a penis”: trans and anti-female-rights activist Autumn Sandeen, who chides the news organization for reporting something which “isn’t newsworthy”. He then goes so far as to accuse news station KRDO of “manufacturing news”, presumably because reporting news of interest to females makes it “un-newsworthy”. We can see in action the attempt by national trans activists to silence and suppress reportage of such incidents which are caused by “Gender Identity” laws erasing all rights of females to privacy from the male gaze in sex-segregated areas such as restrooms.
Trans activists claim that it is unlikely that predators will lie about an internal “Gender Identity” to gain access to female spaces (even though they make up all sorts of lies to do so). But as this article shows, in areas where Gender Identity laws erase female rights, trespassing males are not even being questioned, due to fears of “Internal Gender Identity” lawsuits- even though we know without a doubt that predators are targeting women in such spaces.