Gender Identity Laws allow “Transwoman” to exhibit his erect penis in Toronto YMCA women’s locker room

January 19, 2014

locker_room.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox

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.

DownloadedFile

67 Responses to “Gender Identity Laws allow “Transwoman” to exhibit his erect penis in Toronto YMCA women’s locker room”


  1. Oh for fucks sake.

    This shit is god damn creepy. It makes my fucking skin crawl.

    Why is the left wing eating this shit up? I don’t understand.

    Where is the proof that any of the stuff they claim is true?

    In my quest, I stumbled across a website listing all studies related to the causes of transgenderism:

    http://www.cakeworld.info/home/gender-sex-and-all-that/What-causes-transsexualism

    Skimmed through some papers. Trans are still having difficulties differentiating between themselves and intersex.

    I read one study, most of it related to how chromosomal abnormalities (intersex) can create problems with the brain structure and how hormones given during the fetal development of rats has an effect on brain structure (masculinization of brain size, grey matter). When it got to the part of explaining how someone who has developed into their sex would think they are the other (trans), it was all “It could be”, “can be” etc

    But they still say there is no proof that socialisation has an impact.

    *eyeroll*

    • GallusMag Says:

      Most guys are really ashamed of their autogynephillic sexual compulsions which they experience as unwanted. This accounts for the suicidality. Many male trans start estrogen as an attempt to reign in obsessive-compulsive sexual urges that feel out of their control. It’s unfortunate because instead of demanding actual treatment they lie out of shame and fabulate, furiously, and with all the backing male privilege can provide.
      Like this:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/how-much-evidence-does-it_b_4616722.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

      • WordWoman Says:

        Yeh, I read that Fox News psychiatrist’s views on the California law/trans. It seemed pretty sane, like some comment you’d read on GT. I hesitated to post it here since I disagree with nearly all his other views and don’t like to give him the publicity. However, in his original article, he describes receiving death threats and hate emails after putting forward his views. Well, at least the transactivists don’t discriminate, they attack right-wing types, too.

      • Guls Says:

        Men are way more prone to suicide in spite of being decidedly LESS prone to depressive illness: there has to be a big biological factor at work here; not to mention a societal tolerance – and propensity to excuse – for men ‘acting out’ which is rarely if ever extended to women. Stats are mutable – not to say open to interpretation – but I bet this accounts for a lot of the trans* suicide/murder stats. They quote stats which look exceptional when compared to ‘other women’ (though less so when compared to prostituted women) yet compare to stats for men.

      • anon male Says:

        I’m pretty sure it’s just guns. Fuck, now that it’s illegal to even know who has guns, thanks to dudes in congress, suicide statistics are maybe/probably the best way of even plotting gun ownership per capita on a map.

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/01/21/why_are_there_so_many_squirrels_in_cities_the_morality_campaign_to_make.html

        I mean, jesus, that’s the kind of shit females have devised to train males to behave like civilized people. (Of course, that scheme fails like the rest, by reminding those males that as males they have the choice of murdering helpless animals or getting patted on the head for being Gallant instead of Goofus Manson Gacy.)

      • Motherhood Says:

        Guls, I can’t say for certain but white men in middle age may have even a rate of suicide than the elderly. Trans rate is probabaly right in line with other men in their demographic.

    • GallusMag Says:

      These men need to control their autogynephillic sexual compulsions, at least inasmuch as they infringe on the rights of women and girls to be free from sexual abuse. If they can’t, and if male power structures keep enabling them, women will have to enforce these boundaries ourselves.

      • 1899fcbarcelona Says:

        Bump that…I say women-fight back! We all know society (at least here in USA) men are almost never held accountable for their actions so…they need to be put back into their place!

    • Donkey Skin Says:

      ‘Why is the left wing eating this shit up? I don’t understand.’

      Because the left is as anti-feminist in its own way as the right is in its. Neither respects women as significant beings in our own right.

      The first clue that the male left was sociopathically indifferent to women’s lives or reality was its embrace and promotion of porn (and demonisation of any women who questioned it). This was the point at which liberal feminism also abandoned women. The trans stuff just throws this into even sharper relief.

      As has been said many times on this website, I hope women start to wake up. The ‘progressive’ left, including liberal feminists, are NOT the champions of women’s liberation. They are enemies of it.

      • blackmetalvalkyrie Says:

        Right wing men want to have one women to own as property and left wingers want access to all women. Either one would fuck you until you die if they could only get you trauma bonded to them and/or their system.

      • Baba Says:

        I wish I’d understood this sooner, before the idea that waggling your dick at women is a right became the “progressive” position. The left is only interested in a “women’s issues” agenda for what men can get from us…our labor, our fuckability, our unceasing attention.

      • WordWoman Says:

        Baba’s comment about unceasing attention: That’s what all these autogynophiles want, unceasing attention. If they didn’t why would they keep calling attention to themselves? They are also often men who expose themselves, as you can see from the police reports. Lot of overlap between them and the man in this story.


  2. Reblogged this on Privilege Denying Tranny and commented:
    Of course a 70 y.o. woman is just dismissed over a guy and his raging erection. Think of his feelings! I’m really infuriated reading this post. How the trans mra’s just close ranks and instead of dealing with the problem of MEN EXPOSING THEIR COCKS IN WOMEN’S AREAS they say that the woman is lying, she’s a “terf’ or some such bullshit. Fuck this. I want all men and their cocks out!

  3. Joe Clark Says:

    It’s actually much worse than you describe, since the incident attracted immediate and credulous coverage from a leader in transgender apologia, Jonathan Goldsbie.

    Isn’t it curious how there has been no rush to publish a retraction?

  4. Bev Jo Says:

    Girls and women will just stop using such facilities, which already are far less that what men have. The result is less exercise and good health for women and girls, while the men, with more money have so much more access to these kinds of places. Those women and girls who still go will soon be experiencing worse than this sexual harassment. The men will feel emboldened, not that it takes much, and start raping. This basic issue shows how little females count and how much men do.

  5. anon Says:

    They sound like religious nuts. Anything that challenges their beliefs and worldview MUST be a lie and an eviiill conspiracy to make them look bad.

  6. Mormo Says:

    How is this NOT sexual harassment? Seems trans is the ultimate get out of jail free card. Fuck trans activists for making women’s lives harder. THIS is why we have sex-seggrated changing rooms to begin with.

    • 1899fcbarcelona Says:

      I know…they’re getting on my nerves too. I don’t know if you’re American but similar things are starting to take place in California regarding special rights and privileges to the trans cult.

  7. Mormo Says:

    I’m so happy the law is more concerned in validating some creep’s “identity” than protecting women from sexual predators. Sorry but there is no way I am sharing a locker room with someone male. Go use a unisex bathroom and stop forcing women to deal with YOUR identity problems.

  8. belindieG Says:

    I think conservatives (and most especially the religious conservatives) want to define and limit women to our physically defined roles–ie bearing children, and in the first world, taking care of children, the home, men, etc.. The most extreme would say those are the only fitting roles for “real women.” But the hard-core left says there are no real women. Anyone who claims to be a woman, is a woman. Both are fucked up. I’m not at all comfortable with the option that being a woman is something you put on, like a scarf or shoes.

    • Jane Says:

      And on the left real women are expected to play nursemaid to everyone anyway, and generally for nothing. We get fuck all but “reproductive rights” which they use as a choke chain.

      • Baba Says:

        Thank you for this, Jane – it’s so true it stunned me into just staring at it for a while.

  9. Choco Says:

    Has anybody (the YMCA, transactivist, libfems) considered the thoughts and considerations of Orthodox and Muslim women? For religious reasons they can’t share such an intimate space with men. I’m sure even if it were’;t dictated by religion, most of those women wouldn’t want to see a man in their changing room anyway, and that’s their fucking right, no explanation needed. So are these women just expected to stay at home all the time and never go swimming? That’s exactly what women need-further alienation from the public sphere. I guess intersectionality is only a part of feminism when it’s convenient.

    • Jane Says:

      I see your point, but women shouldn’t need sanctioning from male-dictated theology to have the right to safe, male-free spaces. Considering how the cultural left fetishizes Islam, it wouldn’t surprise me if eventually you have to be Muslim to have spaces away from these creeps. The rest of us don’t have the option not to be sex-poz and physically available according to the left.

      • Jane Says:

        I just wanted to add that I agree with everything Choco is saying. Reading my comment back it might sound like I think Choco is prioritizing the rights of Orthodox Jewish and Muslim women ahead of the rest of us, and clearly she is not. She sees clearly that intersectionality only applies to whoever the cultural left thinks deserving in any given conflict.

      • Choco Says:

        Absolutely, I agree, that’s why I wrote ” I’m sure even if it weren’;t dictated by religion, most of those women wouldn’t want to see a man in their changing room anyway, and that’s their fucking right, no explanation needed.”

      • Adrian Says:

        “The rest of us don’t have the option not to be sex-poz and physically available according to the left.”

        Excellent point, and something that also disturbs me. Lately it seems that if you want to wear modest yet “femmy” clothing (say, a long skirt to mid-calf, or you prefer your button-down shirts to actually have a functional button right at the collar that you can close) you get a pass if you claim to be religious, but if you’re not, well, you must have issues. I.e., you’re prudish “for no good reason” and so by some you’re not properly feminist enough because all “real feminists” should be sex-poz and feel free to flaunt their bodies.

        How about being free to cover UP our bodies also?

        Of course, if you choose to cover up with “men’s clothes” then there is the entire other group of complaints about how you’re “mannish” (though “prudish” does still come up) or “ugly” and are “afraid to embrace your femininity” or whatever twaddle.

      • Choco Says:

        No worries Jane, I understand your point🙂

    • Nevermind WhoIAm Says:

      >> most of those women wouldn’t want to see a man in their changing room anyway, and that’s their fucking right, no explanation needed.

      I can’t think of ANY women I know, all over the political spectrum/religious spectrum, who want men in changing rooms. I do not want to “glimpse” any part of a male body when I am changing MY clothes. I do not want to see a man’s eyes and realize (oh that nonverbal communication!) that he is turned on by being in a changing room with women! I don’t want to be weirded out and mentally rehearsing an exit strategy because someone OBVIOUSLY a biological male is sending out “vibes” that are scary (C’MON, don’t those brochures tell us, TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS, many people report that before being attacked, they had a “sense” that something wasn’t right, something was “off” about a person or situation?)

      Now all of a sudden, it’s men with crazy ideas in their head, “I’m a woman ’cause I THINK I AM,” and all of a sudden the basic advice pertaining to not being a victim is thrown out the window? No, we shouldn’t trust our instincts, we shouldn’t trust when we go on high alert because we’re in a confined space with a biological male that we don’t know?

      I was in my car once (thank goodness I always lock my doors!) and a young smiling man started trying to unlock all the doors – I was yelling at him through the windshield “I don’t know you! I don’t know!” (he was smiling, it was dark, I gave benefit of the doubt he was confused or high or something).

      I hope if anyone is assaulted in a changing room/bathroom by a man in a dress – after these laws have passed giving them access – I hope they sue the hell out of the city or state or whatever level of government passed the law, as ACCESSORY or in some way CONTRIBUTING to the committing of the sexual assault. An individual can’t “pave the way” for someone else’s crime, and then they’re just off the hook because they didn’t actually “commit” the crime.

      Note: I’m not angry with the person I’m responding to. This whole situation angers me so deeply.

      • GallusMag Says:

        “I was in my car once (thank goodness I always lock my doors!) and a young smiling man started trying to unlock all the doors – I was yelling at him through the windshield “I don’t know you! I don’t know!” (he was smiling, it was dark, I gave benefit of the doubt he was confused or high or something).”

        The smiling attack. Ugh. Some men are truly joyful and playful when strangling a woman and snapping her neck. The sheer exuberance. This is something I have personally experienced: The fucking horror of the smiling attack. Your sense of self-preservation protected you from knowing for sure his true intentions and for that I am very, very glad. My stomach dropped reading the incident you relayed here. Ugh.

        “I do not want to see a man’s eyes and realize (oh that nonverbal communication!) that he is turned on by being in a changing room with women!”

        I read a comment by a transitioning “translesbian” saying “As a lesbian of course I look forward to enjoying women undress in the locker room but I would never do anything inappropriate.” Sickening. I wish I had screencapped it but of course these pigs say so many disgusting things it’s impossible to document them all.

      • Teal Deer Says:

        “Enjoying women undress in a locker room”?! How disgusting! Of course, it would never occur to them that real women don’t ogle other women in those spaces.

      • Motherhood Says:

        They do not honor the objections of religious women at all. There is a community that has a 1 hour once a month swim–women only and that is now no longer available to religious women. Nothing the women can do because the upper management and directors of the center are all very PC. And these guys have money and power unlike relgious women. I am waiting for one to show up at the mikveh after his imaginary period. And apparently I am not alone in this because the smaller mikvehs that are always in isolated areas have recently installed some security equipment.

      • Nevermind WhoIAm Says:

        Thanks GallusMag for your perspective on the “smiling attack.” I never heard of that before. I’ve had interactions with other smiling men before…I mean, after dark, walking alone near a college campus, smiling men who were obviously out of their minds or high.

        I feel like it’s possible…women experience these low-level…”interactions” – nothing “happens,” but it still has its chilling effect on you, the level of safety you feel…yet you don’t make the connection between that little nagging anxiety you feel in certain situations, and the fact you’ve had these kinds of interactions before…”there was this weird guy” – it’s almost like a cliche, a set up for a joke…

      • JDaniel Says:

        Hard to imagine that a victim could sue and win. The received reaction to that would be “I’m so sorry to hear that you were assaulted by a woman in the locker room, but of course we can’t prevent unhinged women from assaulting other women sometimes. Better luck in the locker room next time.” Which is exactly the flippant advice that Ken Gallinger gave in this advice column.

      • Nevermind WhoIAm Says:

        Actually, I do think someone could sue and win. I can’t put my finger on it just yet, but legally – constitutionally – I mean in the US, I think there probably is some legal reasoning/precedent for segregating public bathrooms/changing rooms/locker rooms by biological sex. Maybe a “community standards” line of reasoning – I think there is already an “improper use” clause being tacked onto some of this kind of legislation, as discussed by E. Hungerford…these kinds of changes to the law require women to “suspend disbelief” that a penis is a penis is a penis…what is the state’s interest in requiring some of its citizens (women) to – it’s like, creationism is WRONG scientifically, because it is not supported by the data. Well, the idea that a penis can be female anatomy – is WRONG scientifically. There is no DATA supporting this basic switcheroo. Nothing. Quite the opposite. Can you base a law on something scientifically incorrect?

        I know I may not be expressing myself so well. But there’s just something that doesn’t quite meet legal muster in all this…IF creationism can’t be taught as science in PUBLIC schools…then how can this “gender creationism” be used as basis for change to laws governing what constitutes indecent exposure, sexual assault, and so on, in PUBLIC spaces?

        Anyway that is my reasoning so far.

    • Teal Deer Says:

      I’m sure the transactivists and kool-aid drinking officials/lawmakers would simply tell any women with religious objections that it wasn’t a problem, since “transwomen aren’t men, they’re women!”

      • Adrian Says:

        I suspect you’re right about that… those religious people would just get the “transphobic” label.

      • Morag Says:

        Or … the objections of religious women would be honoured, only to be turned against all women, by barring women from contaminating religious men in some other space. Every win will not go unpunished–in the name of “equality.”

    • born free & female Says:

      They’ve considered it in order to dismiss it out of hand. Just saw this comic, which reminded me of this discussion.

      http://amptoons.com/blog/2007/07/17/cartoon-an-easy-mistake-to-make

      (The big shock isn’t that the comic is drawn by a man who feels he should dictate how women activists prioritize their work – it’s that it’s drawn by a man who isn’t a crossdresser!)

      When confronted with criticism from two different philosophies, the trans-supporters just say “That proves they’re both wrong.” No thought required beyond noticing you’re being disagreed with!

      • Dorothy Mantooth Says:

        I love how both of the women in that comic are portrayed as frumpy, unattractive, and “unfeminine,” or “prudish.” Because everyone knows no “attractive” women (read: women who aren’t Olive Oyl or Petunia Pig, according to this guy) would have any sort of problem with men insisting we let them dictate what a woman is and cheer while they run around like caricatures.

        Also, it’s apparently impossible for women to agree on some subjects and not on others, and if they do that means they’re both wrong. There’s a universal way of “feeling like a woman,” but only if men do it. If women from different ideologies do it, it’s because they’re foolish and mean.

      • LC Says:

        I’ve seen that comic before, and it just confuses me. It is actually possible to have objections to an idea for different reasons, and to have both religious and political objections to transgenderism. I tend to think that if I encountered the ‘conservative’ Christian myself, I’d be thrilled- you agree with me? That’s great! Now, let me tell you about the women and children who are being harmed, and why you should -also- object to it for political reasons. Outside of the trans-cult, most people are pretty reasonable to talk to when given an issue they care about.

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        @ Dorothy Mantooth

        Your comment is spot on. The disagreement with trans idealogy is just outright dismissed because two women with different political views can’t possibly agree that femaleness is a biological reality and not a feeling in some male’s head.

        Incidentally, that’s why feminists who oppose the pornography and prostitution industries are dismissed as “prudish” or “sex-negative”, because conservatives are often against those things and how dare those feminists have a vague agreement with conservatives on those issues. (Of course, a lot of conservative men watch porn or buy prostitutes too, they just put on a facade of condemning it.)

        And yes, women who don’t validate male fee fees, whether the males are conservative or liberal, are portrayed as unattractive and a joke.

      • born free & female Says:

        “I tend to think that if I encountered the ‘conservative’ Christian myself, I’d be thrilled- you agree with me? That’s great! Now, let me tell you about the women and children who are being harmed, and why you should -also- object to it for political reasons. Outside of the trans-cult, most people are pretty reasonable to talk to when given an issue they care about.”

        This just sums up for me the difference between the trans cult and everyone else. Most politics comes from looking for common interests and forming coalitions to establish specific goals. The trans cult just declares that their interests trump everyone else’s and bully anyone who doesn’t go along. Christine Benvenuto wrote an article they don’t like? Take it down – no one gets to read an opposing view! Lierre Keith wrote something they don’t like? Ban her from speaking, and physically assault her if she shows her face! Lily Cade won’t have sex with a penis? Tweet in all seriousness about the possibility of suing her for discrimination!

      • druidwinter Says:

        I have seen that cartoon as well, my thoughts were if you were going to compare religious acceptance of one’s political belief;
        You can just as easily Draw a Mto trans talking with a member of the taliban on women’s rights. Transgender is accepted and the mandatory sentence for gay people that don’t want to get lynched. The thing is, the transexuals in Iran do not invade women’s spaces they have their own..

      • Lizzy Shaw Says:

        @druidwinter

        That’s a pretty good point. Fundamentalist Islam will accept transsexuality as a medical condition, but it’s not just people who have sex or gender dysphoria, it’s forced on homosexuals to “cure” them. That was one of the reasons why SRS developed in the United States too. And both the Tailban and mainstream activists have really backwards views on women. I consider myself a leftist at least but I am very mad at “progressives” mindlessly praising Iran for this and not thinking critically for fear of being seen as bigots. To me it’s very telling that SRS is not only more accepted in societies that have stricter sex roles, but it’s used as a method to “cure” homosexuals.

        @born free & female

        Yeah, same here. I’m not a conservative or a Christian but if I agree with someone like that on an issue, then great. If I met a pro-choice conservative, then that’s nice. And if someone has religious objections to this thing like you I would explain why I have political objections because of the harm done to women and girls.

  10. GallusMag Says:

    I really don’t understand the efforts of transactivists to “disprove” these incidents as “lies” or “hoaxes”. These incidents happen ALL THE TIME:

    http://outofmypantiesnow.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/when-is-90-not-substantially-all/

  11. amber Says:

    They should not allowed in the womens changing room till have gone thur there change because what happens if next time its a littil girl

    • liberalsareinsane Says:

      They’re mentally ill men and no matter what mutilating surgeries they may have had they don’t belong in women’s spaces period!

  12. GallusMag Says:

    “Political correctness shouldn’t trump common sense”

    BY CHRISTINA BLIZZARD ,QMI AGENCY
    FIRST POSTED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2014 05:56 PM EST | UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2014 11:37 PM EST

    TORONTO – The older I get, the more particular I am about who I get naked with.

    It’s not that I’m a prude.

    As one ages, things tend to sag and bag and, well, the bits you used to flaunt you tend to want to keep to yourself.

    Apparently, I’m not alone.

    A recent letter to an ethics columnist in the Toronto Star from an older woman complained she had to share a gym changeroom recently with a man who claimed to be transgendered and was therefore entitled to use the women’s changeroom.

    The “woman” had a penis. The penis had an erection and the person it was attached to asked her if she “came here often.”

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate to sound insensitive to people who may be having a crisis about their sexuality, but common sense dictates there should be limits to their behaviour.

    Apparently not, according to Ontario Human Rights commissioner Barbara Hall.

    In a letter on the OHRC website, Hall slams the woman who complained, saying there is no documented case of a heterosexual man gaining access to a women’s changeroom by “posing as a transgender.”

    In such situations, “transgender persons are more at risk than anyone else of being harassed, abused, assaulted, or even killed,” Hall said.

    “For more than 15 years, transgender people in Ontario have had the legal right to use the washroom — or changeroom — according to their lived gender identity,” she said.

    Hall slams those who call for segregation of transgender people into separate bathrooms and changing spaces.

    “This is a practice based on fear and stereotypes, and is exactly opposite the vision of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, which is to build an Ontario based on inclusion, where everyone feels a part of and is able to contribute to the community.”

    Oh, please.

    “Fear and stereotypes” have nothing to do with it.

    Modesty and the expectation that you’re sharing a changeroom with a person of the same gender is more realistic.

    I am sure we’re all sympthetic to transgendered people, but it’s unrealistic for them to expect to be accepted by the mainstream of women in a changeroom if they still have male parts.

    If they don’t want to undress in the men’s changeroom, then the gym should set aside a private place where they can change without embarrassment.

    At the same time, we have women-only swim times at an aquatic centre in Regent Park in order to accommodate certain religious and cultural minorities for whom communal bathing is a no-no. And the OHRC supports that.

    It begs the question: If a transgendered woman with a penis busts a female Islamic swim class in downtown Toronto, whose human rights take precedence?

    It was a question I wanted to ask Hall. Sadly, though, she did not want to be interviewed for my column Tuesday.

    A call to her office elicited the response that Hall said everything she wanted to in her letter.

    Fair enough.

    But I can’t remember the last time Hall had a news conference.

    Her predecessor, the late, great Keith Norton, did more to champion gay rights and promote accessibility for people with disabilities than she has done.

    More importantly, Norton always held a news conference when he put out his often controversial annual reports.

    He enjoyed parrying questions from reporters and cheerfully defended his stands.

    Not Hall. She only offers to make herself available to reporters who request an interview when her report is tabled.

    I’m tired of being told my rights don’t count — especially when the person who does so won’t defend that stand.

    When political correctness trumps common sense, you know your province is headed to a very odd place indeed.”

    http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/28/political-correctness-shouldnt-trump-common-sense

  13. rethinkinggenderidentity Says:

    Reblogged this on Rethinking "Gender Identity".


  14. […] 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 […]


  15. […] 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 […]

  16. slightly terfy Says:

    YMCA: Y-chromosomal Men’s Cock-flaunting Association


  17. A man willing to cut off his penis who hasn’t done it yet makes you feel unsafe, but a man who has cut it off makes you feel safe?
    So what you’re really afraid of is the penis itself?
    Dafaq…
    Sexist much?

    As for safe spaces… when any woman transgendered or not can walk into a mens’ room and drop trow in a urinal regardless of who is in there… don’t fucking whine that some guy was in your changeroom naked… you want equality? you got it.

    • Fruitopia Says:

      Women have separate facilities for OUR OWN SAFETY, not some 21st century equality theory. A FtT in a men’s toilet or changing room will not affect normal men’s safety, although her own safety (and hygiene – men’s toilets are filthy) is at risk. on the other hand, male trans in female facilities are a risk to real female’s safety and dignity. Most male trans have a sexual motivation for wanting to be seen as female. Any laws that would ensure people used the facilities designed for their real sex – or at least their anatomical sex – would affect trans females equally so your “you wanted equality, you got it” is irrelevant bullshit, just an excuse to have a go at females.

    • Fruitopia Says:

      Of course we’re afraid of rape-sticks. When a man is neutered, it lowers their sex-drive, and also shows that they are more likely to have a genuine gender delusion, rather than a paraphilia that causes them to be aroused by imagining themselves as a female (and thus if they removed their gonads they’d have a strong chance of losing their pleasure and motivation to transition). So it is logical to be more afraid of trans who refuse to have bottom surgery since they’re more likely to be perverts.

  18. Jacob Says:

    I think you all should look at this:

    [link to TransMRA website post claiming that no man would ever access sex-segregated areas of public nudity to target women or girls for sexual predation REMOVED.-GM]

    • Jacob Says:

      I feel that this is censorship you have performed as well as not bothering to read the part of the article that said:
      “Setting aside the proven falsehood that merely asserting that one is trans.”
      And the part that said: “Like the elderly Colorado school board member who went to the press to talk about the supposed sexual motivation of trans children who use the restroom, there maybe there is a kernel of truth to story. While it was true that a trans kid used the restroom in an Colorado school district, the hoax happened when a very real adult took to the media to fraudulently claim that she was doing it for sexual reasons. While it was true that a trans kid used the restroom in an California school district, the hoax happened when a very real adult took to the media to fraudulently claim that she was doing it for sexual reasons. While it was true that a trans adults used the changing facilities of Maryland fitness clubs, the hoax happened when a very real adult took to the media to fraudulently claim that it was for sexual reasons. For the Star, learning that a real adult made a claim is enough to make the story probable.”
      See the problem?

      • GallusMag Says:

        Yes. The problem is that you are unwilling or unable to express your thoughts coherently using full sentences and language that other human beings can read and understand. Until you are able to compose a comment that expresses your thoughts coherently, you will continue to be “censored”. See the problem?

      • kesher Says:

        “Setting aside the proven falsehood that merely asserting that one is trans.”

        That is not a “proven falsehood”, that is the definition of what constitutes “trans” identity in the vast majority of cities, counties, and states that offer protections to supposed trans people. In my state, any man who claims to be trans, regardless of medical status and presentation, has a legal right to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and spas. Any attempt from a business to keep him from exposing his penis to girls and women opens that business up to lawsuits and state-imposed fines.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Kudos to you Kesher for parsing the inferred meaning from that disjointed sentence fragment.🙂

  19. Meg Says:

    I hope I’m posting this in the right place:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/fashion/mens-style/mens-locker-room-designers-take-pity-on-naked-millennials.html?_r=2

    So male millennials *who value their own privacy* are okay with telling women and girls that we’re a bunch of TERFs for not wanting to shower with males in locker rooms.

    They don’t want to be exposed to other men’s dicks, but will label us bigots because we don’t want ourselves or our daughters flashed by perverts in the locker room.

    The hypocrisy is revolting. This link needs to be copied and pasted every time some dipshit tries to make us feel guilty for wanting female only spaces.


  20. Reblogged this on WolfWomanoftheNorth and commented:
    “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.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: