Obama’s HUD department rules that ‘Gender Identity’ determines ‘Sex’

September 21, 2016

REUTERS/Larry Downing photo of President Obama with HUD appointee Julian Castro

REUTERS/Larry Downing photo of President Obama with HUD appointee Julian Castro


The Department of Housing and Urban Development joined other Obama agencies Tuesday in ruling that ‘Gender Identity’ determines reproductive biology and overrides Title IX sex-based protections for women and girls in homeless shelters. The department defines Gender Identity as “the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth and regardless of the person’s perceived gender identity.” [p70]

The ruling allows any male to access female sleeping quarters, showers, and restrooms on the basis of self-declared ‘Gender Identity’. Questioning such a declaration on any basis is ruled as discriminatory and women’s rational need for privacy and safety from male violence is dismissed as “unsubstantiated fears” [p52]. 

The rule explicitly forbids requesting evidence of a “transition”, including duration, consistency, or sincerity of belief in declared ‘Gender Identity’. There is no provision to address men who may assert ‘Gender Identity’ for an improper purpose:

“HUD also revises paragraph (b) to add a provision that the policies and procedures must ensure that individuals are not subjected to intrusive questioning or asked to provide anatomical information or documentary, physical, or medical evidence of the individual’s gender identity.”[p13]

HUD disregards with a handwave the rationale for protection of female privacy and safety against male violence behind the Congress’s Title IX provision for sex-segregation in areas of public nudity:

“Contrary to the public comment that suggests what Congress’s intent was in creating single-sex facilities, HUD does not opine on Congress’s intent behind permitting single-sex facilities, but does make clear in this rule that, for purposes of determining placement in a single-sex facility, placement should be made consistent with an individual’s gender identity. This rule does not attempt to interpret or define sex.” [p30]

Yet the HUD ruling does re-define legal sex -as a characteristic on par with sex-stereotypes of “appearance, behavior, expression”- falling under the newly invented federal category of “Perceived Gender Identity”:

“Perceived gender identity means the gender with which a person is perceived to identify based on that person’s appearance, behavior, expression, other gender related characteristics, or sex assigned to the individual at birth or identified in documents.” [p70]

The ruling itself re-defines ‘sex’ as a component of ‘Perceived Gender Identity’ but the agency also defines ‘Gender Identity’ as a “component of sex’ in its response to public comment:

“In response to the comment with regard to this rule’s impact on a “legal sex category,” this rule does not provide a definition of “woman” or “sex.” In this rule, HUD notes that gender identity—and whether a person identifies with their sex assigned at birth or not—is a component of sex.” [p45]

HUD cites the Title IX re-interpretation of other Obama appointed agencies (which call for the elimination of sex as a protected category) as precedent for Tuesday’s ruling, making no mention of the current legal challenges to this very interpretation by 23 states and various private litigants:

“Consistent with the approach taken by other Federal agencies, HUD has determined that the most appropriate way for shelter staff to determine an individual’s gender identity for purposes of a placement decision is to rely on the individual’s self-identification of gender identity.” [p39]

HUD cites various internet surveys as evidence that males with ‘Gender Identities’ are at greater risk of harassment and violence than women and girls. Therefore HUD rules that women and girls must be forced by the state to sacrifice their own safety and absorb the risk from males who prefer sleeping and bathing among women. HUD addresses the safety concerns of individuals with ‘Gender Identities’ extensively, including those who ‘identify as’ having no reproductive biology at all:

“In circumstances where an individual does not identify as male or female and such information is relevant to placement and accommodation, the individual should be asked the gender with which the individual most closely identifies. In these circumstances, the individual is in the best position to specify the more appropriate gender-based placement as well as the placement that is most likely to be the safest for the individual—either placement with males or placement with females.” [p48]

Yet HUD completely disregards voluminous FBI, CDC, and other forensic documentation of epidemic sex-based violence against women committed by males as “beyond the scope” of the ruling, wrapping up their dismissal with a version of the classic ‘but women rape too!’:

“HUD’s rule requires that individuals be accommodated in accordance with their gender identity. It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, as discussed earlier, this final rule requires that providers must take nondiscriminatory steps that may be necessary and appropriate to address privacy concerns raised by all residents or occupants. HUD notes that both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and other VAWA crimes include persons who are transgender or gender nonconforming individuals and persons who are not”. [p58]

HUD fully expects violence, (which it calls “physical harassment”) to occur between homeless women and the males placed in female sleeping and bathing areas as a result of this ruling:

“If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants. HUD recognizes that, even then, conflicts may persist and complaints may escalate to verbal or physical harassment. In these situations, providers should have policies and procedures in place to support residents and staff in addressing and resolving conflicts that escalate to harassment.”[p17]

Strangely, although statistics show that female stranger violence against males is an infinitesimal probability compared to the reverse, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is, yet again, solely concerned with the former- the issue of women’s protection from male violence being “beyond the scope” of the Obama administration’s mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women.


Read the full HUD decision here:




54 Responses to “Obama’s HUD department rules that ‘Gender Identity’ determines ‘Sex’”

  1. drycamp Says:

    All I can think to say about this is that this is a government rule which is at variance with reality. They are right to expect violence. It is rather sad that this prospect does not deter them.

    Suppose that some federal governmental body issued a ruling that we must all behave as though gravity were not real. Or that the CDC decided to rule against the germ theory of disease, so that we need not wash our hands or surgical instruments any more. (Or, knowing the government, that we MUST not do so.) What would happen?

    Reality is not available to be changed by governmental edict. Gravity would continue to pull us towards the center of the earth, and germs would continue to cause diseases. The behavior mandated by the government in defiance of reality would cause a lot of falls and disease until someone woke up.

    So also here. Maleness and femaleness are biological facts. These facts cannot be changed by our opinions, nor by the government. A certain number, probably a majority, of males who believe or affect to believe or say they believe that they are “really” women will behave themselves well in women’s spaces, and not cause trouble. I’m not worried about these people.

    However, human beings being who we are, a certain (hopefully smaller) number of these males will demonstrate that they only make these representations in order to gain access to vulnerable women, or, that the representation made originally in good faith was not strong enough to trump biology. Sadly, women will be assaulted and worse. Like the fall victims and the sick people in my example, we will be the casualties of this crazy policy.

    The good news is that hopefully, everyone, even the government, will take a look, wake up, and go back to recognizing that gravity, germs and gender cannot be wished away. That we must live with the facts of biology, physics and so forth.

    We are not gods or goddesses. We are required whether we wish it or no to live in a world which cannot be changed by fantasy.

    • The Sceptic Says:

      I have not had chance to read this entire post or all the background and really only skimmed the comment by drycamp and could not agree more. However these people are NOT insane as they appear to be. They are in fact insidiously, deviously and maliciously evil, ben on the deconstruction and eventual DEstruction of the America we grew up in.

      Just look at are economy…in shambles. Immigration is a joker.
      Our public schools…a disaster. It is truly ashame that the political Left and the Democratic Party has been hijacked by sociopathic socialists.

      It is truly amazing that I find more to my way of thinking in The Federalist than my usual Left Wing haunts.

      The following contains a wealth of material and well worth exploring:

  2. Bob Doublin Says:

    That last quoted paragraph. They are saying that the dood raping a female resident ISN’T violence or harassment. But a woman defending herself from a trans IS. And the woman needs further 1984 style reprogramming. I honestly can’t interpret that any other way. Or do I need to let it sit until I see the light?

  3. Widdershins Says:

    … I, can’t even …

  4. Kathleen Lowrey Says:

    it is inevitably the case that there will be some kind of horrifying outcome that will cause a back-pedalling on this. There always has to be some hideous price to be paid by women and girls in exchange for their being taken into consideration (we could call these units “Gerri Santoros”: x number of GS units must be paid for legislation, protection, consideration… and it’s like an ongoing rent, never an outright purchase).

  5. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO *tears hair out*

  6. Idiots. All of these people, including Obama, should go back to law school. It seems as if James Pritzker is having an undue influence on the administration.

    There is NO way the administration is going to win in the courts. They seriously overreached, but this isn’t the first time Obama has done this. He has also done this education policy, overriding Congress and the rights of the states. His illegal mandates are the biggest reason I did not vote for him for re-election in 2012.

    “Gender identity” is a bullshit term and always was to justify a sexual fetish, at least among the males. The term “gender” needs to be thrown into the garbage can where it belongs.

    • OldPolarBear Says:

      Yes, Obama needs $1,000,000,000 — that’s billion with a B — minimum to build his presidential “library” in Chicago. I’m sure the billionaire Pritzkers will be crucial to the fundraising. Obama’s “legacy” is all he cares about now.

  7. Mary Sunshine Says:

    A woman in a feminist facebook with me suggests taking up a petition. What do any commenters here think of that?

    • drycamp Says:

      What harm can a petition do? I’d sign it.

    • GallusMag Says:

      I think people should #AskHilary whether she approves of Gender Identity status that overrides Sex-based TitleIX protections for women.

      • drycamp Says:

        We don’t have to go to the trouble to ask her, I’m pretty sure I know the answer.

      • Branjor Says:

        Yes, I would like to know that too. I know she is pro trans rights, but to take it so far as to override sex based Title IX protections for women and girls? That I’m not sure of.
        At this time trans rights is a politically radioactive issue which is dangerous for a candidate to go against. Even Trump has stated that he thinks trans should be allowed to use any bathroom they want. I can see Trump and Hillary not wanting to be politically hurt by the trans lobby. But what about Obama? He’s already had his two terms. What’s in it for him? I don’t know, just speculating, but is it possible that the trans lobby threats to our president and presidential candidates have gone beyond mere political damage, to assassination? Just wondering aloud.

      • ananda Says:

        I would like to see this question posed to her and all candidates for public office: Should self-declaration of

      • GallusMag Says:

        looks like your comment was cut off. But I agree- would like to see this question posed to all candidates. #askhilary

  8. FeistyAmazon Says:

    This is VERY VERY FRIGHTENING FOR ALL OF US FEMALES!!!Obama has betrayed women for the sake of autogynophilic men, and men who can claim to “be women” to have sexual access!!!

  9. IronBatMaiden Says:

    I swear, it’s things like this that make me wish we women had our own party again and didn’t have to rely on the Democrap party! Yes, the GOP is fucking awful too, but these guys are no better. What with their corporatism and now they’re throwing women under the bus! It’s not enough to be pro-choice in terms of abortion rights anymore. You have to take our safety into consideration before passing unsubstantiated laws like this!

  10. atryingthing Says:

    Horrifying. And of course, it’s always the most vulnerable women who will pay the most directly: homeless women and women in prison. Fuck!

  11. prozac Says:

    This is top-level shit coming from the most powerful people in the world.(and I’m not talking about Obama)

    Transgender rhetoric serves many purposes for their aims. There is the obvious financial gains to be had from the pharmaceutical industry, but it also provides a powerful distraction, siphoning the public focus away from the new world order (aka agenda 21, sustainable development, new urbanism, smart growth… and believe me, i know how crackpot it sounds, but at the risk of going OT, check out Rosa Koire’s videos on youtube if you wish to learn more) and lastly, it employs Orwellian techniques to manipulate and control the masses and remove the language people would otherwise use to describe what is happening to their rights and freedoms. It removes objective reality and puts us all on shaky ground. And it has been adopted full force by an increasingly oppressive left with harsh repercussions for those who disagree. Not that the right is any better, obviously. Of course it also serves their personal predilections as well, and these people are very, very, sick. Women are not represented at this level at all.

  12. Magdalena Z. Says:

    This is really hard to accept.

  13. ex home birther Says:

    This is going to cause so many lawsuits. For no real reason. It could have been hud policy to have special housing to protect trans people. But nope! No one has explained how this protects biologically female trans people, because it actually puts them at risk. The only people who gain are males. The stupidity of it all…

    • kesher Says:

      They could have a requirement that a shelter provide something else for an M2T resident if he’s uncomfortable sleeping on a cot in a room full of other men. Hell, even put him up in a motel or have him sleep in an administrative office for the night. It would be a bit of a burden, but surely a lesser one than what homeless women have to now bear. Really goes to show that trans is the new male supremacy. Women are not allowed to say no to men.

  14. Bob Doublin Says:

    Laura Lindstrand of the Washington State Human Rights Commission on how women can determine if the creepy dude in the locker room has a psychological “Gender Identity”:

    “You can tell if someone is lying or if they’re there for reasons they shouldn’t be. Are they dressed like a woman? Are they making any attempt to look like a woman? What are their mannerisms like? Are they speaking low or high? If none of those things are present, or if the person seems sneaky or belligerent, [you] can take action.”

    When in doubt, women should wait for the man to commit a crime against them: “Voyeurism, stalking, inappropriate touching, sexual assault — those are all addressed under the criminal code. As soon as that person starts to display inappropriate behavior, that can be dealt with immediately. If they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing, they need to be made to leave, no matter who they are.”

    Read more of Lindstrand’s wisdom here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/963235-129/how-to-talk-friends-and-family

    I haven’t been able to get this post you did in March out of my mind. It seems like nothing more than a how-to manual for the pervs to sneak by long enough to commit whatever crime they might intend to do. Combine this with today’s ruling….whoa.

    • kesher Says:

      She’s also full of it. Much like the HUD ruling, there is no requirement for expression of gender identity under Washington state law. Period.

      Really goes to show that all trans activists and allies have are lies.

  15. Carrie-Anne Says:

    This makes me so angry and nauseated! I’ve always felt so thankful for the struggles of my foremothers who fought for things like Title IX and equal rights, since that meant I never had to know things like sex-segregated help wanted ads, being pressured to drop out of college so a man could take my spot, substandard or nonexistent girls’ sports teams in schools, women’s names “needing” a male escort (e.g., Mrs. Husband’s Full Name or “the daughter of Man’s Name”), needing a husband or father’s permission to buy a car or have a checking account, etc. Now these MTTs are taking away all those things that were fought so hard for not all that long ago, and making things even worse than they were in the 1950s. At least women in that decade had their own bathrooms and locker rooms, safe from swinging dicks and male predators.

    I’m also angry at how many obedient handmaidens I know, who constantly prattle on about what good little Kool-Aid drinkers (I mean, open-minded transactivists) they are, and proclaim how much they welcome men in our bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons. As recently as five years ago, I didn’t know anyone who supported this, to say nothing of other Trans, Inc. nonsense like asking for “preferred pronouns” on a sign-up sheet for a non-trans-themed event.

    • GallusMag Says:

      I don’t think most women have thought about it. Most are working on the ‘I DON’T HATE THE GAYS’ mentality. A hetero woman and I were laughing about a male using our restroom. I had only seen him exiting the room. “I can’t believe anyone cares about it” she said.
      “What possible reason does he have for using a female restroom?” I asked. “Because of his feelings…” she replied. “Well everyone has feelings,” I replied. “I have lots of feelings. Feelings are a personal matter.”

      “OH MY GODDD” she said, “I was so freaked out! I was in the stall and I heard someone flip the seat up and pee like a man. Then they flipped the seat down. I was afraid to leave the stall but when I finally did it was him preening at the mirror!”


      Women hate this trans shit. The same ones stating “I can’t believe anyone cares” about these dudes in women’s spaces and “Trans women are women!” ARE MORTIFIED by them.

  16. Linx Says:

    A few months ago I mentioned the trans issue to a woman who is VERY sensitive to every social justice issue, every demographic group except her own (white,female, straight, educated). I thought she’d bite my head off. Instead, her face got taut and grey, and she told me she had such a hatred for men claiming to be women she thought she could kill one of them! Then, in the next breath, she told me she was working to overcome that hatred because she believed their brains had been washed in estrogen in the womb and they really are women. I told her no such thing and please, embrace the anger, this is war, and you don’t want to be on the wrong side. No, she said, women will never lose the progress we have made and it is time to have bathrooms that are open to all. She was utterly smug in her new social cause. She will not read a goddamn thing that contradicts the trans religion. I read shit like this HUD article above and I think “So many believe. I don’t believe. I don’t want to live in some Orwellian freak zone. But here I am–cursed to live in interesting times.” Now I am at the point I know I have to act on conscience, regardless of safety, privacy, or peace. I never thought of myself as an activist but I know I must do something. I just haven’t figured out what, or how to be effective yet. This is war.

  17. Cassandra Says:

    This is surreal. It feels like a nightmare. F*ck you, Obama.

  18. charlston Says:

    That sounds too close to reprogramming people’s thoughts to me. Odd they worded it that way. 1984 and the Ministry of Truth
    Will shelter staff be given training to educate others or is it a HUD given that shelter staff know, agree and are assumed to be onboard with HUD guidelines ?

    “If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants.”

  19. HissingOf SummerLawns Says:

    You don’t have to #askhillary, unfortunately. If you go to http://www.hrc.org/resources/obama-administration-policy-legislative-and-other-advancements-on-behalf-of you can see her stances on the Obama administration’s “progress” for LGBT. There are little asterisks after each one for “Indicates a post-2009 policy recommendation involving substantial work by HRC and our movement peers with the administration” or “Indicates a policy recommendation included in HRC’s 2009 “Blueprint for Positive Change.” The absolute worst ones, including this HUD policy and the public school directive forcing teenage girls to shower and undress with boys in locker rooms, fall under the “post-2009 substantial work” category. So she’s swallowed the trans Kool-Aid full-on, as she was no doubt directed to do long ago by whoever it is actually making policy in the Obama administration.

    Does Pritzker really have this much power over this administration? Or are there other forces at play?

  20. thisismeandonlyme Says:

    Fair warning this is a rant.

    Since I am a very long term Obama fan (way back), I am going to offer that he is clueless about this. I honestly trust it is not him, he has bigger fish to fry, like wars and world peace and stuff, and I trust his judgement. But he hired some losers.

    Obama’s DoE is threatening LOW INCOME and SPECIAL ED student funding if schools don’t tow trans lines (that is the funding at risk, its not for friggin football), and HUD, which is a perennial basket case, can’t think of better ways to use public funds but to use legal resources for the emotional needs of men and women who have pathological problems with their gonads? The DoJ is headed by Loretta Lynch, who laid a huge goose egg when trying to untangle cops versus BLM.

    We have trans trolls that lie on every website and on TV about the redefinition of Title IX, saying kids need to be in some sort of treatment. They not only do NOT need treatment, schools cant ask for treatment plans, and parents should not be informed because they may be “transphobic”, or else, see that autistic kid? We will fuck with him and his family and his entire future. See that poor black kid? Take his Head Start. I truly believe Obama is clueless about the shit around this and so are most women who – once they get explained that these men are legally demanding the definition of women no questions asked, are appalled.

    So now I will respectfully ask…as this shit has been funded, trotted out and dragged through the media by the LGBT community, and I know you are not all monolithic and I am grateful for the light these sites offer right now, but how did Lesbians who seem so empowered, get so fucked over by the very organizations that are supposed to represent them?

    I get misogyny and all that, but I really want to understand, what the fuck happened? Was it a slow fuckery like a long term grooming? A sudden overwhelming barrage of trans activist assholes? An ass load of money paying off gay guys at LGBT organizations who hate transwomen and are only too happy to offload them to real women? Women who didn’t know any better and wanted to kiss their booboos and make them feel better? Women who deep inside had empathy for what they are going through? Because I truly want to know what to avoid as we go forward, and we need to do something.

  21. thisismeandonlyme Says:

    Rules for Radicals ladies…they learned them. Use them.

  22. butchcurious Says:

    This makes me wonder whether women can privately form their own housing co-operatives at all like in decades past. It appears that the private sector, our own homes, are the last vestige of women’s space.

  23. rheapdx1 Says:

    Embarassment……profound embarassment here. For many reasons, not the least of which is this level of ignorance on the part of Obama and others reflects in ways that confirms the worst stereotypes. Need I mention what those are?

    As well as the newspeak which is and has replaced sanity. Damn…..

  24. Rachel Says:

    Sorry for the O/T post Gallus and rehouse this if necessary, but I think it’s important. A British MTT competitive fell runner has just been convicted of attempting to murder a British Athletics official who was investigating his right to compete in women’s events. This report was one of the only ones to mention his trans status.

  25. HissingOfSummerLawns Says:

    Do you mean James Pritzker wouldn’t socialize with/give money to a Democratic politician? Penny Pritzker is Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, and James and Penny are cousins, so he and Obama must know one another. Because otherwise, does the fact that Pritzker is a Republican matter? Obama has had a number of Republicans/conservatives either offered positions of power in his administration, like John Sunnunu was, or actually occupying those positions, like Robert Gates and Chuck Hagel.

    I mean, I’m not suggesting that James Pritzker is the shadowy figure behind all of this, but I’m genuinely puzzled as to why Obama and his policy wonks are absolutely determined to gut women’s civil rights at the most basic level unless someone with significant money and pull has their ear. Obama’s got a wife and two daughters. Does he despise them? I just wonder if anyone has any insight specifically into the administration’s rationale in shoving trans down our throats, and I’m not really buying “misguided altruism” as an excuse. There’s something oddly personal in the fervor behind it—I mean, really, the movement itself is pushing them to strip away women’s civil rights at the agency level? And they’re complying like that? The movement is that powerful without some sort of insider pushing the administration? Or Obama is that misogynist? I see Black Lives Matter protests on the news cycle 24/7, but that doesn’t seem to be inspiring Obama or his Justice Department to do anything structural to help black people in America, and blacks are a huge and important voting block for Democrats, so why the hell are a miniscule group of people able to force through these huge changes that strip women of their most basic civil rights? I don’t see special rules or huge interventions being made for black people, who actually are being killed and whose movement actually does have the raw numbers that could turn an election. The things BLM wants are mostly common sense/basic justice, like better restrictions on/training for cops and real trials for trigger-happy officers, but they aren’t getting them. So why are trans people so special that no laws or forms of due process apply to them all of a sudden? It’s not like they sprouted out of the ground overnight; Janice Raymond was warning everyone back in the Seventies.

    The backlash has now gone on longer than active, organized Second Wave feminism did. By the early Eighties academic departments all over the country were full pomo. Why is the Obama administration part of it? (I’d like to believe in his benevolence and ignorance, but I don’t. Obama is a constitutional lawyer and an incredibly smart, well-informed man. He knows what he’s aiding and abetting here. He was at the U.N. this week cheerleading for the glories of globalization and capitalism, both of which are, in the main, horrible for women. It’s men who profit by capitalism. As of 2012 women were still 60% of the world’s hungry according to the U.N.)

    I mean, I went and dutifully voted for Obama twice like a good little girl, and I’ll go dutifully vote for Hillary like a good little girl, but really, what for? She’ll get in, she’ll appoint trans-friendly justices to the SC, and that’ll be it for Title IX. And for women. We’ll be re-litigating for decades just to gain back the ground we once had, which seems very simple: Biological sex exists; therefore women exist. It’s so Orwellian it’s jaw-dropping.

    I’m sorry to ramble; I just feel so awful for the women this is going to hurt right now. We’re all going to be hurt long-term, but these are some of the most vulnerable and powerless women in our society, which makes them some of the most powerless people on earth, and I feel so terrible for what they’re going to face. Need a shelter overnight? Sure, but if you don’t keep your mouth shut about that 200-pound dude in a wig in the cot next to you, you’ll have to participate in our re-education camp, in which you’ll have to agree that you don’t exist and that men are benevolent masters. Right this way, ladies. And that’s if everything goes according to plan. If not, more rape and assault and intimidation for women who have likely been assaulted and raped and intimidated many, many times in their lives. Where’s Obama’s hope-and-change meme now?

    I guess I just need to get my head around why it’s happening and with such unabated force before I can even begin to figure out how the hell we’re supposed to fight them this time. How are we going to figure out how to put an end to this b.s. under a Clinton administration (if she wins) if we can’t figure out who or what is driving Obama? That’s what terrifies me.

    • rheapdx1 Says:

      hissingofsummerlawns Yours truly is upset over the lethargy which Obama’s administration has shown towards blacks and women, just as you are. The fact he and others have gone to bat for those…many of whom see blacks as being being useful as pay for the night concubines or poorly minded and dressed entertainers…and see women as those to steal rights and safety from is beyond me. Having seen or overheard BOTH from the last sentence in living color…this is upsetting. But many mainlining the Kool-aid will deny it.

      As for fighting this BS..one needs to hit the creeps (not all are, but those who are identifiable) where it hurts. If it means class action suits….fine. If it means asking parents of all stripes to boycott schools that bend to the agenda and establish newer schools, that operate like schools on let’s say…Asia or the EU…do it. Enlist those in media, etc who will have the stones to be honest…and ask what needs to be asked, with evidence in hand.

      It is not pretty…but it could work.

  26. Branjor Says:

    Women need to present a united front against this crap and do things like issue statements that do not respect the “authority” of the Obama government to decide the type of things they’re deciding for and about women and to issue statements of our own position on this matter, putting forth our OWN authority (whether or not we can actually enforce our will.) We need to stop RESPECTING the opposition in all its forms, including the form of the government.

  27. What Ever Says:

    I suggest to all schools and places of learning: immediately put 1984, Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, Politics and the English language and Animal Farm on the mandatory reading lists everywhere and right now! It’s getting real out here… and very, very scary. The O admin knows how easily he can get away with all of this because 1. He is almost done in office and can push through 11th hour headspinning BS like this and 2. People are very uneducated today and therefore very easily manipulated. I can’t believe what’s come to pass. It is truly frightening. Obama is making me sick- he has really screwed women everywhere.

  28. Hopefully there will be a big backlash against this, at least on the ground level. Considering how many homeless women (and men to a lesser extent) have a history of abusive spouses, the potential for male re-entry in their own accommodations, access to their own resources, would set a very unpropitious precedent.

  29. HissingOfSummerLawns Says:

    @ Branjor:

    You’re absolutely right. So many women seem totally unaware of the fact that men make the meanings that suit them, and those meanings then become reality for everyone, but those meanings are not written in stone—they just come from men’s brains, which is why they need god, art, politics, etc., to buoy them up and cement their authority, because the emperor has no clothes. Women spend so much of our lives being undermined and scrabbling just to keep alive that we never have time to undo the brainwashing we endure and realize we, too, can make meaning; we don’t have to work in the context we’ve been forced into. Women are encouraged from the moment of birth to be in awe of men, to believe they have some deep intellectual powers we’ve been denied, and it’s awful. They undermine us at the level of our brains and skins to keep us afraid and divided. And when I see these third-wavers talking about trans and porn and prostitution and choicey-choices, it just kills me. So much awe and respect for people who absolutely hate them.

    This blog, and all the other brilliant radfem blogs I see cropping up all the time, are a step towards your solution, but I guess the question is, how do radical feminist women connect to women as a whole? If more women were hearing radfem voices, do you think women would finally come together again? Does anyone who reads this blog think that, or if they don’t think so, why?

    @ What Ever

    It makes me sick and scared, too. The even scarier thing is, so many places of learning have produced (and are producing) the precise conditions needed for rulings like this. The stuff going on in colleges—“micro-aggressions,” professors afraid to have class discussions because their students might get offended and take action to get them fired, comedians refusing to play campuses because the kids are so humorless, etc—it all produces the idea that individual feelings are the very most real and important things in the universe and that other people are obligated to respect them at all times, which in turn creates the absurdity of social justice movements based on feelings rather than shared goals. Men reaped what they sowed by inviting post-modernism into the academy and making it the dominant mode of thought, and we now live in the perfect pomo nightmare, where women as a diverse but biologically-unified class of people no longer exist culturally or politically, but men’s feelings have to be respected as though they have the same objective existence and value as a human female life. Which is always how men’s feelings have been treated, really, but this is the first time they’ve actually been able to dispatch us as a whole class of people this efficiently, and in a way that appears so humane and non-violent. (Obama administration: “Don’t you want the nice oppressed autogynephiles to have their civil rights? In fact, to have your civil rights? What sort of monster are you?”)

    And this appears to be the first time huge swaths of women are cooperating like this. I mean, there are handmaidens in any era, but I’ve never seen or heard of wholesale policing within our own ranks to compare to the third-wavers. In the past, handmaidens were mostly eager to make sure men knew they weren’t like those women; they were good little compliant girls, so they disavowed their sisters, which you can see happening in writings and biographies of important women through the ages. But now, you actually have women, of their own volition, telling other women their reality doesn’t exist, and that they have to comply with men’s version of reality or they’re bigots or transphobes or prudes or vanilla or whatever the uncool thing of the week is. And not just on the topic of trans; on porn and prostitution and BDSM, too. It’s like the worst parts of Orwell, Huxley, and Margaret Atwood patched together.

  30. Lesbian Lurker Says:

    This is awful and has prompted an off topic question within me: I was wondering if there’s an educational article out there that puts all the trans myths in one place (hopefully written in an unbiased manner). A bullet point list of pro-trans arguments and their factual rebuttals with references. Sort of an organized up-to-date compendium, if you will.

    I know there’s a wealth of information on this blog and others but it’s all hard to parse. People who are resistant to our thinking are quick to shut down debates before they get very far and certainly won’t look through hundreds of pages of posts (though the fact that there are so many should speak volumes). I want to educate the ignorant but I’m usually not in a position to look up all the numbers and double check incidents. It can also help people from being ostracized for daring to question the trans movement; having a single link you can give someone and say, “Hey, I’ve been reading this and didn’t know about most of it, what do you think?” would break the ice without revealing where you lean.

    We need to bring this information out of feminist/conservative circles. Housing it on a site that doesn’t exist for either of those things would also give it credence.

    So yeah point me to it if it exists please! I will seriously consider making it if not.

    • GallusMag Says:

      The only critique of gender that exists, the only “mythbuster” originates from Feminism. Radical Feminism. Lesbian Feminism. Critique of “Transgender” absent critique of “Gender” itself (ie. Feminism) is a pointless endeavor, and is what the right wing does. I’m not interested in supporting such a project. If you do proceed, don’t forget to cite my work and research and that of the other women that you copy.

      • Lesbian Lurker Says:

        I think changing minds, even ones with which we don’t agree on everything, is the most important thing. Young people who are pro-trans instantly shut down if you’re a TERF, the same way you have shut down to my idea. Blindsiding them before they discover the root of that information could win a lot of people over. We need to unite instead of divide. It would be subterfuge, not erasure of what women have done.

        It took numerous encounters with male to trans individuals before I became critical and started to research. For the “handmaidens” and folks who will never meet a trans person, education is the key to enlightenment. Helping them access that information in a sea of pro-trans results is not a pointless endeavor.

        Of course all sources would be referenced fully. Thank you for everything you’ve done, you’ve invested so much of your time and energy into this and I really do appreciate it.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I don’t understand. How do you intend to “debunk” transgender absent an analysis of gender (feminism) and for what purpose?

      • GallusMag Says:

        For me the transgender movement is an opportunity to educate the masses on the mechanism of gender itself, the ramifications of which, for women and girls, are much broader than the implications of the transgender movement. The transgender movement is a symptom of something much bigger: Gender. Yet you want to go much smaller, and target the transgender movement for what purpose exactly?

  31. First of all, I can’t believe that I was stupid enough to vote for Obama twice. The women’s vote put Obama in the White House twice, and this is how they thank us.

    When I read this, I cried. One of my best friends who has bipolar disorder was almost raped when she was homeless and sleeping on the street. She fell asleep in the women’s restrooms at a remote park, and she awakened when a man tried to assault her. Thankfully, she took karate as a young woman, and was able to fight him off. She says she has PTSD from this attack, and other acts of violence she witnessed and experienced while being homeless. Now, she and thousands of traumatized homeless women are being told that if they feel uncomfortable having to see a man’s penis when he is undressing, or showering, they must live with the fear, anxiety, and discomfort. He wakes up in the morning with a raging erection poking through his underwear, and women are supposed to ignore it. What woman wants to share intimate sleeping quarters with a strange male? This is unbelievable, and it sickens me to the core.

    During the public input period, I mailed a 32 page letter that listed research study after research study that shows that homeless women are victimized just as much, if not more, than transwomen (biological males). Homeless women have high rates of sexual assault, rape, PTSD, domestic violence, and mental illness. I also brought up the tragic incident in two different women’s homeless shelters in Toronto, Canada involving a predatory sex offender who was granted access to women’s homeless shelters. People who read this blog are familiar with Hambrook,. I also pointed out that males who cross dress or identity as transgender offend at the same rate as other males, and it’s a fact that they have been convicted of all sorts of violent crimes against women. I’m sure that they never took the time to read my letter, or other thoughtful comments from several women. They simply do not care, and I wish they would stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that they do care. I bet they didn’t even read all the comments.

    For background information, click on this gendertrender link, and make sure to scroll down and read everything.


    @ Gallus, “The Department of Housing and Urban Development joined other Obama agencies Tuesday in ruling that ‘Gender Identity’ determines reproductive biology and overrides Title IX sex-based protections for women and girls in homeless shelters.”

    Gallus, as I understand it, Title XI deals with schools and colleges. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is different than Title IX. Both Title XI and Title VII clearly say “sex” not “gender identity”. Historically, both Title IX and Title VII meant sex as in biological sex. I don’t know why HUD brings up Title IX when it has to do with schools, and there are currently several lawsuits from conservative groups and a liberal women’s group over the Obama’s administration’s creative rewriting of “sex” under Title IX.

    @Gallus, “HUD cites the Title IX re-interpretation of other Obama appointed agencies (which call for the elimination of sex as a protected category) as precedent for Tuesday’s ruling, making no mention of the current legal challenges to this very interpretation by 23 states and various private litigants.”

    The latest lawsuit that I’m aware of was filed about two weeks ago by a conservative group involved a transgender boy “twerking” (suggestive dirty dancing) in the girl’s locker room. Google “twerking” and transgender. It’s rather strange that they don’t mention the current lawsuits that several states and a liberal leaning women’s group have filed. WoLF vs. US is a must read.


    If a biological male supervisor of an organization that provided services to homeless people repeatedly exhibited his male genitals to female staff, or felt a compulsion to expose himself to female clients, this could be construed as sexual harassment which is considered a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. Since no documentation of any kind is required for a male to claim “gender identity”, no medical treatment is needed, and he doesn’t even have to change his ID, to me, this is a form of government sanctioned sexual harassment. How can overworked and poorly funded staff at homeless shelters know for sure what goes on in the mind of each and every strange homeless male claiming “gender identity”?

    HUD states,

    “Comments Opposing the Rule

    Commenters opposing the rule provided many reasons for their opposition but the primary reason concerned the safety of nontransgender individuals in a shelter. Commenters stated that the rule should not open female, single-sex spaces to individuals who were born male, citing their fear that individuals could deliberately misrepresent their gender identities and compromise the privacy or safety of vulnerable women and children “ (*they fail to mention that a sexual predator has already ‘misrepresented his gender identity’ in order to prey on women in homeless shelters

    Notice how they phrase this. They say, “the safety of nontransgender individuals in a shelter”, but what they really mean is females who will be sharing sleeping quarters and bathing facilities with males. The female sex is “nontransgender individuals”. Based on thousands of years of history and crime statistics, there are legitimate reasons why females are naturally suspicious of males in our private spaces.

    This is the reality.

    People who read this blog know about Hambrook, but new readers need to know his name, and ask themselves how a sexual predator gained entrance to two different women’s homeless shelters. .Several comments that were submitted mentioned the sexual predator Christopher, “Jessica”, Hambrook, but HUD refuses to acknowledge that males claiming transgender status have already sexually assaulted homeless women in women’s homeless shelters. One homeless woman was deaf, and suffered great emotional pain from the assaults, and another woman was fleeing domestic violence. Americans are far more litigious than Canadians. When a Hambrook incident happens (and it will) in the US, someone needs to sue HUD and the shelter owner. They can’t say they didn’t know it was a real possibility, and they can’t say women didn’t repeatedly remind them that such an incident could happen again.

    This is what they say,

    “It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, as discussed earlier, this final rule requires that providers must take nondiscriminatory steps that may be necessary and appropriate to address privacy concerns raised by all residents or occupants. HUD notes that both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and other VAWA crimes
    include persons who are transgender or gender nonconforming individuals and persons who
    are not.”

    What exactly are they saying here? It sounds like they are acknowledging in a roundabout way that homeless females can be victims of sexual assault, rape, or domestic violence, but it’s not important because a small minority of males claiming gender identity is the only thing that counts.

    “It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.”

    What they really mean is this:

    (1.) They don’t care about the emotional suffering that could be experienced by women with PTSD from rape, assault, or domestic violence. If a biological male with intact male genitalia gets up in the middle of the night, and his penis is poking through his underwear, female rape victims are supposed to ignore it.
    (2.) People who don’t identify as transgender are in the majority, but who cares about the majority, especially when the majority are female. There are far more homeless women with documented cases of PTSD from sexual assault, rape, or domestic violence than there are males claiming “gender identity”, but, “It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.”

    HUD states,

    Placement and accommodation. Placement and accommodation of an individual in temporary, emergency shelters and other buildings and facilities with physical limitations or
    configurations that require and are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or shared bathing facilities shall be made in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

    To clarify that placement is to be made on the basis of an individual’s self identification of gender, § 5.106(b) of this final rule includes a provision stating that individuals may not be subjected to intrusive questioning relating to their gender identity or asked to provide anatomical information, documentation, or physical or medical evidence of gender identity. (**shelters can’t ask if he has had sex reassignment surgery, or been on hormones, but it’s okay if he exposes his penis to females) Therefore, this final rule makes clear that placement in accordance with an individual’s gender identity cannot be conditioned on whether a transgender person has undergone medical treatment, has been able to change identification documents to reflect their gender identity, or has a certain appearance or gender expression.”

    What they are really saying,

    (1.) A biological male can still have his penis and testicles and be admitted to a women’s homeless shelter where he can share sleeping quarters and bathing facilities with females. Sex reassignment surgery is optional. Indeed, shelter staff can’t even ask if he has had surgery because this would traumatize poor transwomen. However, it’s not the least bit traumatic for homeless females with a documented history of sexual assault to wake up one morning and see a male’s erect penis in her face, or to have to share showers with a male. They could devise a confidential questionnaire that asks if he has had surgery, etc., but I suppose that would be too traumatizing for him.
    (2.) He doesn’t have to currently be on hormones, or to have ever been on hormones at any time in his life.
    (3.) No documentation of any kind is required that states that the “gender identity” is long standing and genuinely felt. If no documentation such a letter from a therapist, etc. is required, how can anyone know for sure that the “gender identity” is authentic? The Hambrook case where two homeless women were sexually assaulted by a sexual predator proves that males can and have gamed the system.
    (4.) All his personal identification documents can say “Male”. By “personal identification documents”, I’m assuming this means driver’s license, etc. If the driver’s license says “Male”, and he says he is a “woman”, then the over worked and underpaid shelter staff has to accept him.
    (5.) It does not matter if a blind person could still notice that he is male a mile away. Notice where they say, “or has a certain appearance or gender expression.”

    HUD states,

    “HUD is encouraged that many shelters are providing increased privacy for all residents, such as private rooms and bathrooms and showers with locks, and as discussed earlier in this preamble, HUD encourages this where feasible. This rule, however, does not mandate this configuration. Mandatory configuration of shelters is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.”

    This is the reality.

    They really love the phrase, “is beyond the scope of this rulemaking” which is just a rather fancy bureaucratic way of saying they don’t care what people think, and they have already made up their minds. Women in homeless shelters don’t get private rooms, and organizations that run shelters that exist on a shoestring budget don’t have the money to build private rooms and more showers. HUD wants people to know that they think it’s a good idea that some shelters are providing increased privacy, but they know that shelters are not, and cannot afford to build new facilities. As they state, “It’s beyond the scope of this rulemaking”. Notice the words “bathrooms and showers with locks”. Does this mean that HUD knows that there are bathrooms and showers in some women’s homeless shelters that don’t have locks, and they admit that males with fully intact male genitalia will have access to these unlocked showers and bathrooms? According to Obama’s HUD, it’s encouraging that some shelters are providing increased privacy and bathrooms and showers with locks, but it’s not mandatory, and “is beyond the scope of this rulemaking”.

    What about sex offenders? It’s a fact that males claiming “gender identity” have sexually assaulted women, and many of them are registered sex offenders. If registered sex offenders such as Paula Witherspoon find themselves homeless, they will have access to women’s homeless shelters. Any, or all, of the males in these two must see videos could claim “gender identity”, and gain access to a women’s homeless shelter. All they have to do is self-identify. These videos are based on court records and convictions. This information is available to anyone.

    Two must see videos that transgender activists don’t want people to see, but women need to see anyway. Gallus, I know these two videos have been posted on this blog before, but women need to understand that any male claiming “gender identity” will be granted access women’s homeless shelters, and he doesn’t have to undergo any medical treatment. He doesn’t even have to change his identification.

    (1.) “Women: Decide for Yourselves” 23 minutes Jane Williams
    March 12, 2016

    (2.) “Decide For Yourself Transgender Crime (Jane Williams Mirror)” 26 minutes August 11, 2016

    How does this relate to indecent exposure laws? Many states have indecent exposure laws, and these state laws would, for all practical purposes, be rendered meaningless. As pointed out in WOLF vs. US, this creates an absolute defense to any criminal charges under “indecent exposure”. WOLF vs. US is brilliant, and a must read.

    “New Mexico criminal law makes both “Indecent exposure” (“knowingly and intentionally exposing his primary genital area to public view” (NMS 30-9-14(A)), and “Voyeurism” (“to view . . . the intimate areas of another person without the knowledge
    and consent of that person . . . while the person is in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room or tanning booth or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” (NMS 30-
    9-20(A)(1)) crimes.

    50. By mandating that biological males be given free and unfettered access to women’s private spaces (including the very spaces listed in the Voyeurism statute), the May 13
    Guidance is final agency action that overrides New Mexico criminal law, creates an absolute defense to any criminal charges under these statutes.”


    It’s a fact that males claiming “gender identity” have exposed themselves to girls and women. I know these links were posted before, but women need to realize that it’s logical to assume that males exposing themselves to women will happen again.



    Someone needs to sue HUD, and when another Hambrook incident happens, and it will, HUD needs to be sued for millions. They probably released the final ruling now because they know Obama will be out of office in less than two months.

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: