States protecting sex segregation and gender identity at the same time!

May 13, 2016

Sex matters.

For the record, I am sharing an excerpt from the gender identity laws state chart that I posted on this site in 2013.

These are states in which gender identity laws have already been passed, yet protection for sex-segregation is also explicitly allowed by statute. This differs from the recent DOJ interpretations of “sex” where “gender identity” is not a separate concept, but one and same with “sex.”

The “gender identity” definition is on the right in column D. The (s)exception language protecting sex-segregation in certain spaces is in column C, middle. Compare and contrast!!

Don’t let anyone tell you there is no statutory or historical support for a female right to privacy from males in certain spaces of public accommodation.


As you can see, the protections vary in their construction but the overall message is one of legislative recognition that sex-segregation is legitimate and appropriate in certain circumstances.

View original post 1,444 more words

103 Responses to “States protecting sex segregation and gender identity at the same time!”

  1. Dogtowner Says:

    Elizabeth West has just put an essay on Counterpunch about the irrational fear of trans in women’s spaces. I would like to see someone far more knowledgeable and clever than myself submit a counterpunch.

    • prozac Says:

      Reading that counterpunch, I could really tell how much the authors enjoys smelling their own farts. Most evident.

    • CowardlyNewWorld Says:

      I am an American who works for a cruise line, and I have been to more than 100 countries with my work. I have been following this US transgender news from Europe where I am currently working. I have noticed that one of the US pro-trans arguments is that gender-segregated bathrooms are an American custom and the rest of the world, “especially Europe,” has unisex bathrooms “everywhere.” I can tell you from experience that this is not true. Even in ultra-tolerant Amsterdam, segregated toilets are the standard. There are occasionally unisex single-occupancy bathrooms at small restaurants and stores, but that’s about it. I’ve noticed that none of these pro-trans supporters have photos of “Unisex” signs on the doors of these thousands of foreign bathrooms to back up their claims.

      The only time I have encountered public so-called “unisex” bathrooms have been in villages and outdoor markets in “developing” (Third World) countries such as Rwanda. These are bathrooms most Americans don’t want to get anywhere near. They tend to be single-occupancy bathrooms (much like your “family” bathrooms), there’s often a line-up of half an hour to use them, and they consist of a filthy squat-hole, hundreds of bees buzzing around the hole, and usually no toilet paper or sink.

      The myth of the European unisex toilet standard seems to stem largely from urban legend, in which a “friend of a friend” on a high senior class trip allegedly had to use one “in Italy.” No mention of this restaurant’s name. Gender-segregated bathrooms are the standard at large facilities in any developed country in which men and women have different genitalia and exposure of them are necessary to use the bathroom. I do believe this would include the entire planet Earth.

      • Thanks for pointing that out. I always thought that argument was b.s. having gone to Italy a few years back. I used sex-segregated bathroom facilities in Italy as well as in Germany at its airport in Frankfort.

      • red Says:

        Aside: Cowardlynewworld. Thanks for that.

        So many fascinating women posting here. I am so sad we will probably never meet.

      • kesher Says:

        I remember there being unisex, multi-stall toilets at Charles de Gaulle, and this was 15 years ago, but that was my only sighting.

      • CowardlyNewWorld Says:

        @Susan Nunes: Yes, it is BS. I suppose there may have been a few pubs in sexist parts of Mediterranean Europe decades ago that didn’t want women in attendance, so a lack of designated women’s bathrooms was one way to keep the wives at home. I can say with certainty that in 2016, unisex bathrooms are not the standard in Europe that the pro-trans in the US are claiming. If I had a way to attach photos here, I’d be happy to take photos of European public bathroom doors, complete with various languages indicating “men” or “women,” demonstrating that men and women want their privacy and safety here just as much as anywhere else.

      • CowardlyNewWorld Says:

        @Kesher: I don’t recall unisex bathrooms when I used Charles de Gaulle last year. I generally fly in and out of Paris via Orly. At Orly, the bathrooms are definitely gender-segregated. The next time I’m at CDG I’ll definitely make a note to check.

      • kesher Says:

        Like I said, it was 15 years ago. They may have removed them. I can’t see the wisdom of eliminating sex-segregated restrooms at a highly trafficked international airport of all places. Lots of socially conservative people travel through there. What are they supposed to do?

      • ImNoCissie Says:

        Thank you so much for this. I have heard these claims myself and the last time I was in Europe was so long ago that I hesitate to say anything in response. I remember single sex public toilets in Italy but many were so gross that you wouldn’t want to use them. Too long ago for me to want to argue about it.

        But this post is verification of the lie. I will call it out next time I see it.

      • CowardlyNewWorld Says:

        @Kesher I didn’t mean to sound that I doubted there were unisex multi-stall bathrooms at CDG. Sorry if it sounded I did. I don’t recall using the bathroom at all when I was there a year ago. I had a quick connection flight there. The next time I’m there, I’ll check out the situation and I’ll post here.

  2. It doesn’t even matter at this point. The federal government and the federal judicial system have stepped in and there isn’t anything anyone can do outside civil war.

    • When the lawsuits hit, it will be over with for the trans crap. The Obama administration has declared open warfare on women and girls.

      • Cities, businesses, Christians, women who fight this, students, etc, etc, are going to lose this war. It’s already been decided. It’s been decided since the 80s, and I was too stupid to see what was happening. Our oligarchs, our judges our lawmakers and our lawyers are perverse from inside out. Misogyny for our granddaughters and our great granddaughters await them. And misogyny like we have never seen before. We only think we have seen misogyny. When the time comes, women will embrace purdah con gusto.

      • Don’t agree with that at all. Transgenderism and the surgeries will go the way of lobotomies and other types of medical quackery. Psychosurgery is always unethical.

        All it takes is a few sexual assaults and lawsuits, and the whole trans con game will fall apart for what it is really about. Put that on top of those who “transition” who eventually suffer from a host of medical issues, and the whole thing is done.

        Trans make up an almost insignificant portion of the public. The biggest problem is with those who enable it under the false banner of “tolerance.”

      • Abbie Carter Says:

        I guess I’m feeling pretty hopeless about this, too. I’ve seen women who I know are smart and thoughtful, some of the most intelligent women I know, jump onboard this train and violently attack any dissenters. People don’t dare say anything for fear of losing friends, jobs and/or businesses and that’s terrifying to me.

        These are well-off white males who’ve always gotten what they wanted. What can or will stop them now? Will I have to homeschool my children to keep them safe from this insanity?

      • It is not inevitable. This nonsense will go into the trash bin of history along with other forms of medical quackery that have been shown to be ineffective and dangerous. The lawsuits are inevitable. Psychosurgery has a very long, very ugly history. We do have to be reminded of it every now and then of the horrors of 20th century, which the trans enablers have forgotten about. The surgeries and hormone treatments should have died with George “Christine” Jorgensen.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        Of course we’re going to feel discouraged, but the answer is to fight in whatever ways we can. Gallus Mag must be doing an absolutely heroic amount of work to create posts, keep the comments free of litter and toxic waste, and give us this space to find each other and talk about these issues. Everyone who adds to the discussion is both pushing back and creating an archive of information and commentary that other people can find when they start looking into the subject.

        (In fact, if you google “men in the ladies room,” the second hit is GenderTrender, and it’s the third for “transwomen in the ladies room!”)

        Besides commenting here, we should also try to get information to journalists, politicians, and everyone we know. I think most people are unaware how few MTT’s want SRS and how many are autogynephiles for whom transitioning is a fetish. Just getting the word out on that will help some people see things differently.

      • petuniacat00 Says:

        I agree completely with Susan Nunes and Oak and Ash. This has the whole gender component but it’s also a reprise of medical quackery just us as Susan says. Doing massively invasive surgery to solve a psychological problem. We don’t do that. Then why is this happening? you might well ask. Because medicine isn’t actually regulated. What little rulemaking on doctors there is won’t kick in without strong negative publicity. Which is probably why the transgender activists set up their whole McCarthyite mode of operation. If reporters are going to get crabbed for doing a story on something they leave it alone. That’s how the paedophile priest horror managed to go on for so many decades. But eventually the bubble popped.

        Oak and Ash said we should all do what we can to spread information. So here’s a link to my new post. Turns out an infographic Media put out saying transgender bathroom laws cause no problems used as it’s example mainly states on the list in this post! In other words states that don’t have the most extreme transgender bathroom laws. It’s all explained here and there’s an entertaining graphic.

      • michelle Says:

        The POSPotUS may have declared war but, if what I observed in New Orleans this past weekend was any indication, there is going to be A LOT of push back.

        Was down there for a poker tournament, which admittedly tends not to be tables full of liberal-minded folks, there is an interesting mix of young (twenties) and older not to mention more and more women. After my third table change, I got to one in a one-day event that had quite a bit of political chatter going on. It got QUITE vocal when the subject of men in the women’s restroom came up…and this was just about Target, not the POSPotUS declaration of war. A couple of women at nearby tables also agreed with our unanimous disagreement with mandating that women accept this bullshittery.

        Unfortunately, even though many of the tournament players, even in Circuit events have disposable income, not enough are really active in the political process itself.

        There DID seem to be consensus that if anyone found a pig in a wig in the bathroom with their daughter or grand-daughter, the pig in a wig will get their surgery sans anesthesia and without going for cosmetic appearance…

        One upshot, even if they are not politically active, is that many more also became aware of just how few of them ever even seek medical care much less pursue full surgical process.

        Where the POSPotUS’s declaration is going to hit Peak Trans head-on is when parents begin to realize that this is more than bathrooms in schools…it will be shared rooms on field-trips or other school events where shared lodging takes place and also when little Susie fails to get an athletic scholarship because some male claimed laydee-feelz and took her spot on a sports team.

        Obama fucked up big-time by believing this is a Title IX issue that means bending over for the males. He has also managed to provide the wedge issue that has the very real potential to unite a sorely fractured GOP.

      • Janetwo Says:

        @Susan Nunes,

        Agreed. There will be a backlash against the transgender agenda and against the left which has done nothing in real terms to improve the life of most people. First the Tea Party, now the support for Trump are indicative of the irrelevency of the left in dealing with the issues which affect the people most disenfranchised by the last 30 years of corporate job outsourcing. Now when they make it unsafe for 50% of the population to pee and change clothes in peace, I dare say they will feel the pain in the not so distant future.

        I know that as a Canadian socialist, tree hugging feminist, I do not feel any more represented by mainstream liberals than conservatives and I will vote conservative in a heartbeat if their platform demonstrates more common sense than the current flavor of loonie left.

    • redberries Says:

      @Susan Nunes It will be interesting to see in the next decade, possibile lawsuits that might happen from children who started transitioning as early as 8 years old and started taking hormone blockers. Many of these children may make the decision to stop transitioning in their late teens but are now faced with dealing with sterility and having messed up under developed bodies.

    • OldPolarBear Says:

      There is a backlash building; it is going to be big and a lot of “liberal” politicians and other “liberals” are going to be blindsided by it. A dear relative of mine by marriage, lifelong Catholic woman married to my “blood” relative, who converted to Catholicism (both of them quite conservative), is MAD and up in arms about this “guidance letter” or whatever the hell it is that Obama and/or the Dept. of Ed and/or the Dept. of Justice has issued to the schools. And I don’t blame her.

      This would not sound surprising, but they have actually been mostly empathetic and tolerant toward gay men and lesbians, and their kids are mostly as well. Unfortunately, the political backlash is may help some very nasty right-wing people get into power and do a lot more of their very nasty stuff.

      • donesoverydone Says:

        Tying civil rights protections for gays lesbians to right for men to self identify into women’s locker rooms = best thing ever for the right wing. The lgbTTTT has handed the right wing a rational argument to use against them. It’s so fucked and so stupid.

      • kesher Says:

        Democrats are risking losing moderate women to this nonsense. Liberal women have bought the cultspeak, but there are a lot of women in the center of the political spectrum who otherwise mostly vote Democratic who aren’t going to stand for their daughters being exposed to pig-in-wig penis. These women aren’t all that concerned about abortion rights or gay rights, they’re kind of okay with the welfare state, but they’re also swayed by promises of low taxes. I could see them swinging Republican over this issue.

      • They are not about to swing Republican in this election, at least on the presidential level. Trump is just too vile, too radioactive, to get much of a crossover vote. Besides, he is a big trans supporter.

        State and local elections are another matter. What is going to be the game changer are the lawsuits that WILL occur as a result of these idiotic laws. When you get right down to it, one of the reasons for the sex-segregated spaces is to help prevent lawsuits resulting from rapes and other forms of sexual assault and even murder by men against women and girls. There is no way the lawsuits will not happen. That isn’t even to mention the medical malpractice suits will be filed by those whose lives and health were destroyed by “transitioning.”

      • donesoverydone Says:

        Welfare state, in the US? What are you talking about? You think there’s some sort of social safety net here? There isn’t. Get cancer, lose your job, run out of savings and see what sort welfare state you are living in.

      • kesher Says:

        I know social welfare programs are few and far between in this country, but try to convince middle class Americans of that. They think the government takes care of the poor, which is at least part of the reason why so many Americans express contempt for the poor. Why are they on the street if they’re being “taken care of”?

        There still are a few programs that Republicans are more than happy to roll back, but, given that many Americans assume tons of money gets spent on social welfare already, it’s not a make-or-break election year issue for most.

  3. Dogtowner Says:

    Since no one else thinks this is important, I would like to try and write something for Counterpunch, but will need to utilize sites such as this one for links. Here is a quote from West: “the notion that there are male rapists who will seize this opportunity to enter women’s rooms disguised as females persists—and frankly, it beggars belief.” Of course, she has no source for this broad generalization, whereas GT provides endless sources for exactly that crime.

    What I need to know is if it’s okay to link to this site.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Yes you may. Thanks.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        I’m actually quoting you as well; your statement about why wouldn’t men put on dresses so they can LEGALLY access women’s spaces is super. Also your piece about Synthia China Blast. So I hope it’s okay quoting you as well. Still haven’t submitted the piece, so you can object and I’ll check back here to make sure it’s okay.

    • petuniacat00 Says:

      I’m glad you’re going to write something!

      Here is a useful link for ya

      Tons more where that came from. 😄

    • Cadystanton Says:

      dogtowner: good for you for writing a letter in response to this additional lie among many that the trans cult/allies spews endlessly to silence debate. here is a link i use in my correspondence with legislators, media, friends and family, etc.: this is a list of mtt violence against women. well documented and irrefutable but of course most trans appologizers will say they aren’t “true” trans (whatever the f… that is) so that needs to be addressed. I find that most people, including the so-called journalists, know little to nothing about what is happening in transville: they just spew out the lies told by the patriarchal trans/allies puppets, and pat themselves on the back for being so “tolerant” (to all but females, of course). We do need to continually counter the transcrapola that is everywhere, but it is exhausting. sites like this and 4thwave and others are our go to sites for truth, sanity and empowerment.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        I’m familiar with transwidow’s site but hadn’t included it as well in my sites for people whose stomachs are strong enough to go beyond my short list of creeps. So, thanks! My piece could have gone on and on, but I was feeling so sick by the end of it. I did address the “not true trans” nonsense which reminds me of the “not true Christians” nonsense spewed by one group of Christians against another group of Christians. I think Counterpunch pretty much publishes everything submitted, so don’t think that will be a problem.

  4. southwest88 Says:

    Don’t count the red states out – the right-wingers are in full bluster and ready to make this an election year issue to get more of their side out to vote. And these states are going to take the federals to court over this in several judicial districts. The time it will take for this to all work up to the Supreme Court may give things that tonysam2 listed above (assaults leading to lawsuits, detransitioners telling their stories, more “trans” kids dying young from hormone use, etc.) to finally make the mainstream news and people may start realizing that trans SHOULD go the way of lobotomies and phrenology. My hope is that more women will realize that neither the right wing nor the left wing give a damn about us and this will lead to a new women’s movement that is not controlled and bankrolled by groups run by men or the federal government.

  5. CowardlyNewWorld Says:

    I am disgusted by how many comments on other websites are victim-blaming the eight-year-old girl and her mother in Chicago who recently was nearly strangled to death by a man, Reese Hartstirn, in the women’s bathroom at a chain restaurant, Jason’s Deli. The comments, probably made by trans sympathizers, blaming her mother for not being in the women’s bathroom with her. Is this what it’s come to? Eight-year-old girls now have to be accompanied by their mothers to the women’s bathroom? Sure, four-year-olds should be accompanied at all times, but eight? Before this trans nonsense, eight-year-olds in chain restaurants went to the bathroom by the themselves all the time while their parents remained at the dinner table and enjoyed their meals. What’s the new age threshold for girls and women to be allowed to go to the bathroom alone safely in this trans-ruled world? Eighteen? Eighty?

    • againstvaw Says:

      Ideally, we’ll revert to ancient Athens, where women from slave-owning families never left the house except to attend a few public ceremonies. Women from poor families banded together to go to the market. Women who went out alone were fair game. Saying transladies are women brought disaster on us.

    • I just read that her mother was WITH her, although in a different stall. Your point still stands, though. As does a point I have been trying to make when people say women can “just ask creepy men to leave”. How is woman supposed to demand that a man leave?

      • Teal Deer Says:

        Plus, the moment that creepy man says “I’m a woman,” the woman who just asked him to leave is painted as the villain.

      • CowardlyNewWorld Says:

        @Ennis Demeter, you’re right, that’s even worse if the mother was in there at the same time. It’s bad enough that women are wondering if they’ll be safe going to women’s bathrooms alone. If they’re endangered even if going in pairs, the future’s really looking bleak.

    • New reader Says:

      The account I read of that incident is that the mother WAS in the restroom. She was just using another stall. I guess now she’s to blame because she had to pee at the same time as her daughter? How unreasonable of her!

      And note that the girl was in a stall with a door but that didn’t help, contrary to what the trans constantly claim that we don’t have anything to worry about because we have stalls with locks and doors…

      • Teal Deer Says:

        In my community, drug problems in public parks have gotten so bad that they’ve taken the doors off the stalls there, and some of the high schools have removed stall doors as well.

      • againstvaw Says:

        Women and girls should use their teleportation skills to put themselves into locked cubicles. It’s their unreasonable insistence on opening the door to go in and out that puts them at risk because they are creating temptation for people with penises (who are not necessarily men).

        Everyone knows that a hardboard partition which begins at calf-level and ends at head level is impenetrable by sexual predators.

    • redberries Says:

      I think even if the little girl was 18 she still wouldnt have been strong enough to defend herself against a grown man attacking her.

      I hope with all that’s going on right now the little girl or her mother isn’t getting harrased by activists and are able to deal with what happened privately.

    • southwest88 Says:

      Asked several trans supporters about crimes in which a single male attacker has killed or disabled the mother and then moved on to attack the children. Adult women get attacked every day. Got no answers to that since inconvenient truths are generally ignored by trans supporters. But blaming mothers is such a go-to response in our culture that it is not surprising.

    • juno Says:

      A MTF trans gets raped and it is a ‘hate crime’, a woman gets raped and ‘she asked for it’.

  6. amazondream Says:

    Noooo, we don’t need panty checks at the bathroom now do we? Now we need armed guards to protect women and children who are trying to exercise their right to pee in private.

    I’m betting Obama has been fed the wrong info all along and that this is going to surprise him by blowing up in his face big time. This is an election year mistake of epic proportions. I just hope this doesn’t throw the election to Trump.

  7. Carrie-Anne Says:

    I’m glad to see all the negative comments in articles about these new bathroom policies, but it’s also frustrating to see more than a few of these people falsely associating these laws with feminists and the LGB community. I really hope the T gets dropped from LGBT, since T issues have nothing to do with the other three letters. For that matter, the whole alphabet soup needs to be edited back to what it used to be.

    A big problem seems to be that a lot of folks think this is “only” about bathrooms, and not also about locker rooms and many other women’s-only spaces. I wonder how many of them would be cool with a grown man waving his pretended “female penis” around in front of little girls then.

    • Imnocissie Says:

      Some of the Liberals defending this policy also think gay and trans people are basically the same I’ve been told that I’m anti-gay and that only gay hating Christians are against this policy

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        Probably some of the same ones who condescendingly tell the rest of us we need to be educated.

      • K.Jane Says:

        I get called anti-gay too and I’m a lesbian. This shit is why I don’t like telling everyone I’m a lesbian, because they think I automatically support this. (And liberals have very harsh words for any kind of minorities who disagree with them.) I am sick of being associated with trans because most of the discrimination I’ve experienced for being a lesbian has been from trans and their liberal supporters. I’ve had conservatives tell me I’m going to hell, but I don’t consider that a real threat unlike the rape and death threats.

        The trans movement did have a successful political strategy to parasitize lesbian and gay activism. It’s to the point where organizations that claim to represent us will oppose equality ordinances if they don’t include tranz. I will support an anti-discrimination ordinance based on race even if it doesn’t mention lesbians, but then again I’m not a raging narcissist.

        I am happy to see that my state is on that list though.

        While it’s really bad and there’s a lot of censorship, most Americans are not going to want men sharing bathrooms with their daughters. I also think that eventually this will be exposed as medical quackery. In the meantime, keep coming to great websites and discuss this. Talk to friends and family members and acquaintances when it’s safe to do it. Political movements are more successful in the long run when they are done by discussing the issues instead of a total ban on dissenting opinions.

  8. red Says:

    This is very good. I am really tired of the knee jerk dismissal of any Christian speaking out on this subject. We may not like the rest of their baggage but in this, they are right.

    Who is Jacqueline Andrews:

  9. red Says:

    These are UN WOMAN stats: Yet, legislators and journalists maintain this never happens. I have read highly respeccted male political columnists blatantly ridiculing women who are alarmed about bathroom rights, I have heard ministers of education being interviewed on national tv mocking and scoffing at the idea any female could be or has been sexually abused or harassed in a public washroom. This week. There is NO point sending them emails with links. The media security systems are set to jettison emails with links. The legislators ea wonks, good lefties all, x them out manually. Here, this issue is carried almost exclusively by men, both straight and gay. Why? The first thing they do is namecall Christian women. I’m thanking them, myself. No one else seems to have the guts, present co. excepted.

    “An estimated 246 million girls and boys experience school-related violence every year and **one in four girls say that they never feel comfortable using school latrines,** according to a survey on youth conducted across four regions. The extent and forms of school-related violence that girls and boys experience differ, but evidence suggests that girls are at greater risk of sexual violence, harassment and exploitation. In addition to the resulting adverse psychological, sexual and reproductive health consequences, school-related gender-based violence is a major obstacle to universal schooling and the right to education for girls [11]. – See more at:

    • donesoverydone Says:

      It’s great if eliminating civil rights protections for gays and lesbians and access to abortion is acceptable losses for you, cause that’s what the right wing is going to do with these bath room bills. I don’t see the point in running to abusive men expecting them to save me from other abusive men.

      • red Says:

        I see women who have been sexually abused and are afraid.

      • donesoverydone Says:

        Yes I have come to accept the fact that many so called radfems see the loss of civil rights for gays and lesbians to be acceptable losses if it gives them the illusion of safety from men in dresses.
        Never mind that bathroom bills do nothing to prevent male violence and male predation. Does it do anything about creep shots which keep getting upheld by liberal and conservative judges on the grounds that women and children do not have a right to privacy in public? Nope. Does it do anything about copyright laws that make it so the owner of a pic is the one who took it, which makes it nearly impossible to get video taken without permission off the internets? Nope. Do anything about rapists having a 3% chance of doing any time? Nah. Does it even address women in homeless shelters and jails who are the most vulnerable when it comes to gender identity laws as they can’t leave? No.
        Women complain here about libfems throwing women under the bus to gain favor and the illusion of protection from liberal men, but conservative women doing the same, it just a different bus.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Preventing males from accessing public single-sex facilities where women are undressed doesn’t reduce male predation of women? Huh?
        Preventing males from accessing public single-sex facilities for women results in the loss of civil rights for lesbians and gays?
        Your analysis seems illogical.

      • red Says:

        Where have I said I give over Lesbians’ rights ever? Lesbians are women. Full stop. I’m not a Lesbian but I bring fire for them, just as I do for Christian women.

  10. ImNoCissie Says:

    Several conservative blogs are highlighting Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 1975 writing in the Washington Post assuring everyone that the Equal Rights Amendment still allowed for privacy and single sex bathing, changing and sleeping facilities.

    I think court challenges will come down to a redefinition of “sex”. If some judge (or five judges at SCOTUS) decide that “sex” and “gender identity” mean the same thing, unisex facilities will become the law of the land.

  11. OldPolarBear Says:

    This video was posted on Raw Story today, May 16. The usual liberal thing about she got them with science about trans, all the right-wing religious people are too stupid to understand, etc. This woman goes on about xxy and xyx and so on — is that the usual conflation of intersex conditions with trans? I honestly don’t know enough to evaluate or refute.

    • Mortadella Says:

      I saw that. Mommy is a loon. She referenced all of her child’s transgender friends at school. Everyone is buying this. None of these kids are intersex.

    • LC Says:

      This is truly frightening, as no only does the left seem to be engaged in “virtue signaling”, as one gender critical woman put it, but “science signaling”. I know that people buying into her nonsense don’t understand the first thing about chromosomes or intersex conditions- but she’s mentioning “science” and they love science. No need to think about it or check up on the facts.

    • Elle Driver Says:

      She’s a fucking idiot. Not only is she a fucking idiot, she just insulted a few million intersex people with her claims of “this is all new” to society or whatever the fuck her point was in all that blather. Hell, she never even said the word intersex, which shows you the degree of conflation going on between the two, utterly unchecked.

      To the first, she mistakenly refers to the SRY gene as the “XRY” gene. She then declares that when “that little piece”(?!) of the Y gene falls off, it makes a transboy, while the absence of the X chromosome makes for a transgirl. Which makes zero sense because females are XX, male XY; there is no male without the X. She seems deeply confused. I listened to her explanation several times, and I’m still at a loss.

      This is some true Dark Ages sorcery bullshit as chromosomes don’t determine anything trans; they can however, be the determining factor in various intersex conditions. She names XXY (Klinefelter) and “YYX” (actually XYY but at this point…) as part of this transgender chromosomal spectrum, neglecting to acknowledge that both of her examples only occur in biological males.

      Ms. Tyler then points to males developing breasts (gynecomastia) as further proof of this “chromosomal transgender” while the truth is most males, intersex or no, have some kind of breast tissue development. To top this all off, she mentions people with “both” genitalia being part of this transgender circus as if gee golly gosh, doc couldn’t decide so I guess they have to live in some strange trans netherworld, with zero autonomy to decide for themselves.

      So as to your point OldPolarBear, yes. Transactivists are all too ready and eager to exploit intersex conditions- which can come with a host of real medical issues, to boost their bullshit agenda.

      Let me say again, this woman is a fucking idiot.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      This mother has obviously been gathering her fact salad in Farmer McGoogle’s garden. Given the extremity of her daughter’s reactions, the child seems to have serious mental health issues that are not being addressed. I find myself wondering–again!–what’s wrong with these parents.

      Lately I’ve begun to think that people who say their child identifies as the other sex should have to undergo psychological testing to rule out personality disorders, Munchausen’s by proxy, terminal stupidity, and anything else that might be contributing to the child’s problems. (Needless to say, the child should also be tested.)

      While I was looking into this, I found a study done in 1991 of mothers of boys with GID. 53% of them either met the diagnosis for Borderline Personality Disorder or had symptoms of depression, compared with 6% of a control group.

      I’m shocked–not at the study’s results, but that possible psychopathology in the parents is being so completely ignored.

  12. ImNoCissie Says:

    I read the majority decision in the Gavin Grimm case because someone cited it on a blog I was reading in regards to the Obama/Lynch decree.

    The 2 judges in the majority seemed to have bent over backward to find that, even in the 1970s, the definition of the term “sex” was ambiguous enough to leave an interpretation that included “gender identity”. The dissenting judge was having none of it, but I guess that doesn’t mean anything.

    I know this decision means Grimm’s case can go forward. But does it mean that the official definition of “sex” has been changed to include whatever a person decides their “gender identity” is, for purposes of Title IX?

    • kesher Says:

      Their decision regarding “sex” actually meaning “gender identity” only applies to courts under that circuit’s (the fourth, if I remember correctly) jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear Grimm’s case, then the Fourth Circuit’s decision will stand, but, again, it will only apply to courts in that part of the country. Other circuits can consider the Fourth Circuit’s decision when deciding their own cases, but aren’t bound by it. If SCOTUS hears the case and affirms the Fourth Circuit’s decision, then “gender identity” trumping “sex” applies nationwide. If SCOTUS strikes the Fourth Circuit’s decision down, then “sex” applies nationally.

    • The term “gender identity” didn’t even exist in the 1970s. . Neither did the terms “transgender” or “transgenderism.” There was only the term “transsexual,” and people who were transsexuals were extremely, extremely rare, with very few in the world. The term “transvestite” was used for crossdressers. The term “sex” has NEVER been ambiguous. Title IX means exactly what it says and has nothing to do with crossdressers. Those judges need to be kicked off the bench for making things up.

  13. “She’s a fucking idiot. Not only is she a fucking idiot, she just insulted a few million intersex people with her claims of “this is all new” to society or whatever the fuck her point was in all that blather. Hell, she never even said the word intersex, which shows you the degree of conflation going on between the two, utterly unchecked.”

    I’m sure people with rare genetic conditions who struggle with actual medical conditions and are often infertile are pleased to know that they are just like Stefonknee Wolscht, the 50 year old divorced father of 7 kids who identifies as a 6 year old girl.

    There isn’t anything or anyone that these colonizing and co-opting trans activists won’t shamelessly co-opt to further their political agenda.

    Most clinicians use the term disorders of sexual development instead of intersex. These are people who have something seriously wrong with their reproductive system. Infertility is common in DSD, and other health conditions can also exist.

    Every major DSD organization says that disorders of sexual development are not the same as transgender.

    “Is DSD the same as transgender?

    No. Transgender refers to a situation in which a person feels that the gender assigned to that person at birth (boy or girl) was not the right one for him or her. DSD is about physical sex development (how a person’s body formed), not about gender identity (who a person feels himself or herself to be).”

    This is from the Intersex Society of North America which has been around for years.

    “People who identify as transgender or transsexual are usually people who are born with typical male or female anatomies but feel as though they’ve been born into the “wrong body.” For example, a person who identifies as transgender or transsexual may have typical female anatomy but feel like a male and seek to become male by taking hormones or electing to have sex reassignment surgeries.

    People who have intersex conditions have anatomy that is not considered typically male or female. Most people with intersex conditions come to medical attention because doctors or parents notice something unusual about their bodies. In contrast, people who are transgendered have an internal experience of gender identity that is different from most people.

    Why on earth do they intentionally bring up intersex when they must know that intersex is not the same thing as transgender? They have no shame.

    As to clinicians using the term disorders of sexual development instead of intersex, this website says,

    What is useful about the terminology of DSD? What is unhelpful?

    Before coming to a consensus to use the umbrella term “disorders of sex development” (DSD) in 2006, clinicians sometimes used older umbrella terminology, including the terms “pseudo-hermaphroditism,” “true hermaphroditism,” and “intersex.” Some patients found these older terms to be so stigmatizing that they were unable to talk about their conditions, and this left them unnecessarily isolated and ashamed. Some clinicians even withheld diagnoses from affected individuals because they were afraid that the labels of “hermaphroditism” or “intersex” might have a negative emotional and/or social impact on these individuals and their families.

    When clinicians came to a consensus to use the new term DSD, they did so in part out of this recognition of harm to patients, but also out of recognition that the definitions of various medical terms based on “hermaphrodite” were many years out of date in terms of scientific advances. They also recognized that “intersex” did not in practice function as a useful umbrella alternative because clinicians could not agree on what counted as “intersex.”

    Another problem that these older terms presented was that they seemed to imply a specific type of identity (as in “she is a pseudo-hermpahrodite” or “he is intersex”) when, in fact, often the condition did not form a critical aspect of a patient’s identity. By contrast to these older terms, the term DSD refers to a condition that a person has, not who a person is. It seeks to put the person first.

    Today, there is clear medical consensus that the term DSD refers to “congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex is atypical.”

    DSD (intersex) can be diagnosed with genetic testing and other tests. There is no scientific way to test for “gender identity”.

  14. red Says:

    Just an FYI: As you can see, another FtT at the front of the line, kind of like the brave Kanesetake warriors do, put the women up front in battle. They’re expendable.

  15. red Says:

    Nobody asked girls and women who have survived male abuse, male sexual abuse what they want. Nobody asked what does it mean to be your “real self” when that costs thousands of dollars (taxpayer provided in this case).

  16. red Says:

    How long have women been suffering attacks on comment sections to the point most are unwilling to take part in public discourse, while media refused to mod violent threats and abuse toward us. We are 52 % of the population.

    Now this sector less than 1 % of the population is getting preferred treatment, and women are thrown under the bus again, for some “feels”.

    Another silencing of women, for the rights of males.

    At the end of the now closed comment section of the announcement of Federal action on trans “rights”.

    “Starting soon: To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, for all new accounts, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada’s online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted for existing community members in June.”

    • red Says:

      This is the same broadcaster that protected sexual abuser Jian Ghomeshi right down the line, even today using meaningless weasel words about the issue of his sexual and physical abuse of approximately 20 women. He went free. That’s not “another” issue, it’s the same issue. There will be no protective laws written for us.

  17. Oak and Ash Says:

    This is a surprisingly thoughtful and sensible op-ed by an emeritus professor at Yale Law School–very different from the knee-jerk, pro-trans journalistic boilerplate you usually find in the NYTimes. Maybe it’s this year’s Elinor Burkett moment.

  18. GallusMag Says:

    “We are writing to express our extreme outrage at the legally spurious ‘Dear Colleague’ letter issued jointly by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice on Friday, May 13, 2016, regarding the use of bathrooms by transgender students in public schools.

    “The issue of whether Title IX protects a student’s gender identity has already been decided by a federal court in Pennsylvania. Title IX provides that educational programs cannot discriminate ‘on the basis of sex.’ In Johnson v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Com. Sys. of Higher Education, the federal court for the Western District Court of Pennsylvania found that Title IX’s language did not provide a basis for a transgender status claim. The Court held that ‘Title IX and its implementing regulations clearly permit schools to provide students with certain sex-segregated spaces, including bathroom and locker room facilities, to perform certain private activities and bodily functions consistent with the individual’s birth sex’ (emphasis added). Relying on this rationale, the Court upheld the University of Pittsburgh’s policy of separating bathrooms and locker rooms on the basis of birth sex under Title IX and the United States Constitution. An appeal of this decision was dismissed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on March 30, 2016.

    “The ‘Dear Colleague’ letter is an unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government into an area that should be and is legally handled locally by school districts who best know their students and parents. At its core, the letter sacrifices the fundamental privacy rights associated with intimate bodily functions for millions of school students. Plainly, this directive will allow men to go into legally sex-separated bathrooms with young girls. The parents of these young girls are rightly concerned about your policy and its implications for their daughters’ safety.

    “The fact that this directive mandates a change in already established law under Title IX with no regard for the legislative process is indefensible. It is the duty of Congress to address any changes in statutory law. The letter’s threat to federal funding for public schools which do not comply with this unsupported directive is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitutional legislative process and flies in the face of the very idea of a Constitutional Republic as envisioned by this country’s founders. Art. I, § 1 of the United States Constitution (‘All legislative Powers…shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.’).

    “We urge the President to direct that the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter be rescinded immediately.”

    SOURCE: State Representative Daryl Metcalfe

    • Not the first time Obama has done this with abusing federal funding to circumvent the law. He did this with Arne Duncan and Race To The Top. It was clearly illegal and even impeachable, but of course the GOP didn’t do anything because they agreed with Obama’s ruinous education policies.

    • ImNoCissie Says:

      That’s wonderful. So glad there is some case law supporting single-sex facilities and their protection under Title IX

  19. Dogtowner Says:

    For anyone who read my comment about writing a piece for Counterpunch: I wrote said piece, thoroughly researched and sourced, with links to sites such as GenderTrender, and they have not published it. So as Francois Tremblay put it, they were content to publish an easily verifiable lie. Another liberal website masquerading as radical. And why do I always suspect people’s economic status? Hmmmm.

  20. The Democrats rightly condemn Republicans who don’t believe in the science behind climate change. Then, the US Department of Justice tries to push through policies that are based on questionable science.

    It really upsets me that the US Justice Department is using junk science to push a particular politically driven policy. The blog 4th Wave Now tears this apart. I would also like to point out the absurdity of what the US Justice Department is saying.

    This is the junk science that the US Justice Department is using to justify its policies. Pay close attention to 31 through 37.

    31. An individual’s “sex” consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment. Among those factors are hormones, external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, chromosomes, and gender identity, which is an individual’s internal sense of being male or female.

    The first part of this sentence is true. They fail to mention rare disorders of sexual development which is not the same thing as transgender. Male, female, and disorders of sexual development can be proven scientifically, but gender identity cannot.

    “… Among those factors are hormones, external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, chromosomes. (in other words, actual science)

    Gender identity does not determine one’s sex because it’s primarily a culturally derived term.

    “ gender identity, which is an individual’s internal sense of being male or female.”

    If the US Justice Department says,” gender identity, which is an individual’s internal sense of being male or female”, then it’s going to have to define what an “internal sense of being male or female means”. How do we quantify an “internal sense” which implies an individual perception or belief?

    What is an “internal sense of being male or female”?

    32. For individuals who have aspects of their sex that are not in alignment, the person’s gender identity is the primary factor in terms of establishing that person’s sex. External genitalia are, therefore, but one component of sex and not always determinative of a person’s sex.

    It looks as if the US Justice Department is intentionally trying to mislead people. This phrase could mean disorders of sexual development or gender identity which are two different things. Disorders of sexual development are actual genetic conditions that can be proven scientifically, but there is no test for gender identity.

    “…individuals who have aspects of their sex that are not in alignment”

    Gender identity is not the primary factor in determining one’s sex. How can something that can’t be proven scientifically be a primary factor in determining one’s sex?

    “External genitalia are, therefore, but one component of sex and not always determinative of a person’s sex.”

    Again, what are they trying to say, and why intentionally conflate disorders of sexual development with transgender? This sentence could apply to disorders of sexual development, but what does it have to do with gender identity?

    Before they transition, the vast majority of transgender identified people have external genitalia that are no different than other people. Most transwomen (biological males) still have fully intact male genitalia.

    Before he became Caitlyn, Bruce Jenner fathered six children by three different wives. His external genitalia and male reproductive system works just fine.

    33. Although there is not yet one definitive explanation for what determines gender identity (***here they admit there is no definitive explanation for what determines gender identity), biological factors, most notably sexual differentiation in the brain, have a role in gender identity development.

    34. Transgender individuals are individuals who have a gender identity that does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender man’s sex is male and a transgender woman’s sex is female.

    “A transgender man’s sex is male” even if the transgender man has a uterus, ovaries, vagina, XX chromosomes, gets pregnant, and gives birth. A “transgender woman’s sex is female” even if he has a penis, testicles, prostate, XY chromosomes, and impregnates females multiple times.

    Apparently, the US Justice Department is telling us that humans reproduce via gender identity. It says, “A transgender man’s sex is male”. Think about this for a moment. FTMs (biological females) do not get pregnant and give birth because they have a uterus and ovaries, etc. No, that is all wrong. FTM Thomas Beatie gave birth to three babies because of “gender identity”, not her biological sex as in uterus. Caitlyn Jenner fathered six children by three different wives due to gender identity, not because of his male reproductive system. Google FTM and pregnancy.

    “Pregnancy is a great option for some trans* men, particularly those in relationships with someone that produces sperm. I know of a couple of trans* guys that have gone this route, and from what they’ve said it isn’t easy by any means but may be worth it to you.”

    35. A transgender individual may begin to assert a gender identity inconsistent with their sex assigned at birth at any time from early childhood through adulthood. The decision by transgender individuals to assert their gender identity publicly is a deeply personal one that is made by the individual, often in consultation with family, medical and health care providers, and others.

    The US Justice Department is saying that people can assert their gender identity from “early childhood through adulthood”. What ages are we talking about? So, a two, three, or four year old child can “assert gender identity”, and a forty or fifty year old adult can “assert gender identity” too. How do three or four year old children “assert gender identity”? What specific behaviors in three and four year old children constitute “asserting gender identity”?

    We are also told that asserting gender identity is “often in consultation with family, medical and health care providers, and others.” So, in early childhood, children consult with their family.

    36. Gender identity is innate and external efforts to change a person’s gender identity can be harmful to a person’s health and well-being.

    Despite what the US Justice Department says, gender identity is not an innate characteristic. Male, female, and rare disorders of sexual development can be proven through genetic tests, medical tests, physical observation, etc., but there is no scientific way to prove gender identity.

    The blog 4th Wave Now points out,

    A 2008 meta-study by Korte et al sums it up:

    Multiple longitudinal studies provide evidence that gender-atypical behavior in childhood often leads to a homosexual orientation in adulthood, but only in 2.5% to 20% of cases to a persistent gender identity disorder. Even among children who manifest a major degree of discomfort with their own sex, including an aversion to their own genitalia (GID in the strict sense), only a minority go on to an irreversible development of transsexualism.

    Because so many trans activists claim that intensity of discomfort with one’s body parts is some irrefutable sign of “true transgender,” or that prior researchers didn’t adequately differentiate between “true trans kids” and the merely “gender nonconforming,” I’m going to emphasize this bit of the above quote:
    “even among children who manifest a major degree of discomfort with their own sex, including an aversion to their own genitalia.”

    Even WPATH—World Professional Association for Transgender Health—whose clinician-activists spend a good deal of time promoting younger and younger ages for “transition,” acknowledges on page 12 of its Standards of Care that most trans-identified kids grow out of it:

    In most children, gender dysphoria will disappear before, or early in, puberty.

    An earlier online version of the WPATH SOC-7 cited specific numbers—greater than 80%–and included research citations, but this more specific information, oddly enough, has disappeared. But this 2014 study remembers:

    …as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood.”

    All we have to do is use our common sense. If gender identity was innate, then how do people explain detransitioners?

    A British transsexual who had a $15,000 sex change in 2007 now deems living as a female to be too “exhausting,” and wants British taxpayers to pay roughly $22,000 to undo the original procedure.

    ‘I was born a boy, became a girl, and now I want to be a boy again’: Britain’s youngest sex swap patient to reverse her sex change treatment

    Don Ennis, an ABC News editor, had a sex change about three months ago. Now the father of three is planning to change back into a man, according to the New York Post

    The man who’s had TWO sex changes: Incredible story of Walt, who became Laura, then REVERSED the operation because he believes surgeons in US and Europe are too quick to operate—man—knows-hed-be.html

    37. Gender identity and transgender status are inextricably linked to one’s sex and are sex-related characteristics. (*the US Justice Department really said that transgender status is a sex-related characteristic)

    Sex related characteristics exists because sexual dimorphism in primates is real. It’s caused by actual physical differences between the sexes. All primates reproduce sexually, and no primate can change its sex. Rare disorders of sexual development exist, but they are not the same as transgender. The vast majority of transgender identified people have no disorders of sexual development. The only way transgender identified people can try to alter sexual dimorphism is through drugs and surgery. We are told that gender identity is innate, but why would something that is truly innate require external procedures to prove its very existence?

    Again, male, female, and disorders of sexual development can be proven scientifically, but gender identity can’t be proven one way or another. This is junk science being promoted by the US Justice Department.

  21. red Says:

    Somewhere someone mentioned women only safe transit services. Oh yes, it’s going ahead. Check this out: And while you’re at it, check out the reporter:

    “An earlier version of this story said Collective Action for Safe Spaces operates a ride service. That service was offered as a pilot project and it is currently being restructured to address the needs of transgender women who face high levels of harassment.”
    May 22, 2016 12:54 PM ET

  22. cerulean blue Says:

    I’ve been wondering why, as a lame duck president, Obama would choose this as the issue to make his legacy. He had to know how inflammatory it would be. His people do polls after all, and politicians are among the most cynical people on Earth. I found the answer while watching the news tonight. It’s his buddy “Jennifer” Pritzker. The Pritzker “Family” Foundation has donated between 10 and 25 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Clearly Obama wants a piece of that action for his presidential library. And one must pay the piper. Of course this tells us quite a bit about the possible Clinton II administration, doesn’t it? Expect more of the same, if not worse, if she is elected. 10 to 25 million dollars worth.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Very interesting. Drop a link to your source if you get a chance. Thank you!
      ETA: Oh! you said it was broadcast on the news! My bad.

      I was wondering if any Pritzker / Tawani Foundation funds had made it into South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard’s coffers, causing him to veto the transgender bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the house and senate in his state. Also North Carolina’s attorney general Roy Cooper, who refused to represent the state on HB2 and who is running for governor.

      • kesher Says:

        The party line is that Daugaard changed his mind because a pig in a wig he knew when the PIW was a child contacted him and convinced him that men who look like linebackers in dresses belong in women’s spaces. It could be a pack of lies, but then I find it easy to believe that conservative men are eager to embrace the inherent male supremacy of the penis rights movement.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Kesher- I wonder if the Pig in a wig was Mark “Mara” Keisling. His dad William Keisling was Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey’s Chief of Staff until the late 80’s when he was forced to resign over ethics violations.

      • cerulean blue Says:

        It’s here if you sort by 10 to 25 million dollar donors. I double checked. Given that Obama is tight with the Pritzker I have no doubt this is his motive.

      • cerulean blue Says:

        It’s not Tawani, though. It’s the “Family” Foundation.

      • kesher Says:

        This article seems to be giving “Kendra” Heathscott some/most of the credit: That’s where I got the idea that Daugaard was swayed by a dude in a dress. The second photo in the article is of Heathscott. He’s rough looking for 22; maybe he identifies as trans aged.

      • cerulean blue Says:

        Just to clarify, the news story I saw was about Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation. I just happened to see the Pritzker name on the list of mega donations they showed to accompany the story. Rest assured the media is not following the money when it comes to trans, inc.

    • rheapdx1 Says:

      Let’s say….just for the sake of discussion…we get Clinton, the sequel as president and she, to pay back her backers, continues to gut Title IX, as well as gives into the junk science. How soon will it be, before there are class action suits against the fed because of same, as well as those against insurers who, following edicts…place the elective medical care, over those that are necessary?

      One needs to ask the above, because as many of us here have pointed out, far too many are being put at risk, for the benefit of human snail darters. @SkyLarkPhillips is right in her analysis of where the fed has on Obama’s watch, attempted to ruin Title IX, which along with other system-gaming tactics have made the US a joke, among those who know the score. With the joke being played on the public in the name of being ‘fair’.

  23. Imnocissie Says:

    Interesting analysis of the Issues with doj’s recent reinterpretation of Title IX

    The Transgender Bathroom Debate and the Looming Title IX Crisis

    • GallusMag Says:

      Surprisingly critical and lucid analysis from that legal pundit.

      • This is a shift for Suk: “[t]he discomfort that some people, some sexual-assault survivors, in particular, feel at the idea of being in rest rooms with people with male sex organs, whatever their gender, is not easy to brush aside as bigotry.”

        Suk’s earlier condescending piece, with its shoddy male-centric history of sex-segregated bathrooms from 26 Jan of this year, “Who’s Afraid of Gender-Neutral Bathrooms?,” located the genesis of these spaces entirely within the desires of prude Victorian male paternalism to protect women who must be seen as weak. Thus, to support sex-segregation is no longer an historically important act of feminist resistance against male sexual violence, it is actually “anti-feminist” and means you think women are weak. This is liberalism in the USA today. Shameless. But at least she’s acknowledging the radicalness of the recent moves.)

      • GallusMag Says:

        Maybe she “got educated”. I hate to even say that because of the sneering male tendency to equate any female disagreement with a lack of education (otherwise known as stupidity). But look at Sarah Ditum. A few short years ago she was calling for radical feminist conferences to be banned in the UK. She mocked and protested lesbians as discriminatory against the feelings and interests of heterosexual males and implored us to read ‘Whipping Girl’:

  24. Oak and Ash Says:

    These articles in the Morning Star are similarly clear and cogent. At least some socialists still understand the importance of class analysis, as opposed to most clueless liberals.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: