Helena Montana city commissioners voted 3-2 yesterday to add a public nudity exemption to the city LGBT non-discrimination ordinance which passed the first phase of the approval process.
A PDF version of the proposed ordinance -prior to the addition of the public nudity amendment- can be viewed here: http://www.kxlh.com/files/draftord.pdf
The proposed non-discrimination statute defines “Gender Identity or Expression” as :
“A gender-related identity expression, or behavior, regardless of the individual’s sex at birth.”
It will provide legal protection to LGBT city residents in all areas of employment, housing, and public accommodation. The public nudity exemption states:
“However in any place of public accommodation where users ordinarily appear in the nude, users may be required to use the facilities designated for their anatomical sex regardless of their gender identity. Such requirements shall not constitute discrimination for purposes of this section 1-8-4”
From the Helena Independent Record, City Commissioner Thweatt explained the amendment “…would allow the owner of a business to remove a person who, for example, was born male but is now a transgender person who had exposed genitalia in a sauna. The explanation was in reference to reports of this happening at Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Wash.”
In that case, a man named Colleen Francis was inadvertently given the legal right to expose his male genitals to high school girls in the female locker room, due to an overly broad Washington State public accommodation statute. You can read about that case here: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/olympia-wa-school-officials-state-gender-identity-provision-overrides-title-ix-equality-for-girls-swim-teams/
Montana hunter and attorney Roberta “Bobbi” Zenker, who after fifty years of life as a heterosexual married man and father of two decided in 2007 to become transgendered, testified before the committee that he believes men like himself who wish they were female should have the right to expose their penis to females in places of sex-segregated public nudity- and they should exercise discretion as they see fit. “The fact is that I am pretty modest and my experience with trans people is that they are pretty modest too.” Zenker stated.
Good for Helena Montana for passing discrimination protections for LGBT people which also take into account the rights of women and girls to not be subjected to men’s penises in women’s locker rooms and saunas. All males have a right to use facilities based on anatomical sex. What they wear, or how they think of themselves should have no bearing on this. And women and girls have the right to privacy in sex-segregated areas of public nudity, and the right to be protected from male indecent exposure, regardless of what personal beliefs the male subscribes to. Kudos!
The anti-discrimination ordinance passed 5-0 and the final vote will be held on December 17.
Right-Wing attorneys to represent Swim Team at Evergreen College after Colleen Francis exposes his penis to High School Girls
November 2, 2012
Follow up to THIS POST.
Parents of the high school girls who were forced to witness the naked genitals of a 45 year old man in the Evergreen College locker room have retained legal counsel and vow to challenge “Gender Identity” policies and hold the college liable for any further infringement on the girls legal right to use the facilities free from indecent exposure.
Fox News reports that the parents have retained the conservative Christian legal team of “The Alliance Defending Freedom”. From the article:
“A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a women’s locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.
Hacker said a 45-year-old male student, who dresses as a woman and goes by the name Colleen Francis, undressed and exposed his genitals on several occasions inside the woman’s locker room at Evergreen State College.
According to a police report, the mother of a 17-year-old girl complained after her daughter saw the transgender individual walking naked in the locker room. A female swim coach confronted the man sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself. She ordered him to leave and called police.”
[click on screen caps to enlarge]
View complete PDF of police report here:
The legal team sent the following letter to Evergreen College today. According to the letter, the college has hung curtains up in the locker room for the girls to hide behind to try and escape the man’s gaze as they undress, and to avoid looking at his exposed penis.
View complete PDF of letter here:
It is unfortunate that parents were forced to seek representation from such a conservative right-wing group in a matter that most common-sense people (regardless of religious or political views or sexual orientation) can immediately understand:
Women and girls have a right to be free from-
1. Having penises shoved in our face.
2. Being forced to undress and perform private bodily functions in front of men.
IT’S THAT SIMPLE FOLKS.
Read more about Colleen Francis here:
Gender Identity Laws allow “Transwoman” to exhibit his erect penis in Toronto YMCA women’s locker room
January 19, 2014
Yet another example of the “Colleen Francis” effect of Gender Identity laws and how they allow men to inflict sexual abuse on women and girls in locker rooms and other sex-segregated areas of public nudity. In this instance, a 70 year old woman described what happened to her in a question she sent to the advice column of her local newspaper, the Toronto Star:
“I am a senior woman. Recently, a “man” claiming to be transgender, who had not yet begun physical treatments, was permitted by our local Y to use the women’s locker room. There are no secure change rooms. The person they allowed in was not courteous and stared at me while I struggled out of a wet bathing suit. He was naked, had an erection and playfully asked ‘do you come here often?’ I understand that gender is no longer judged solely by genitalia, but does a brief contact with the duty manager mean that men not yet committed to gender reassignment are free to disrobe anywhere they choose?”
Did transgender activists respond with concern and address the fact that Gender Identity protections remove the rights of women to be free from male sexual abuse in public areas? No. Instead, they claimed that the sexual assault was a “false claim by right-wingers” and “a hoax”, the same way anti-feminist men blame rape victims by citing “false rape claims”. Did transactivists like Autumn Sandeen and Cristan Williams express an ounce of empathy or concern for the elderly woman abused by the “transwoman”? No they did not. They accused the woman of making a false claim, calling her a liar, for no other reason except that they would rather allow women and girls to be sexually abused than address the way Gender Identity laws eliminate rights and protections for women and girls.
Likewise, the advice columnist who responded to the woman’s letter advised her that Gender Identity laws allowed men “the absolute right” to exhibit their penises in women’s locker rooms, and that basically she should get used to it. He kind of waffled a bit on the erection part, deeming it “unacceptable” – but providing no clear measure to legally halt the behavior. And if erect penises are “unacceptable” but non-erect ones are “an absolute right” for strange men to inflict on women and girls in YMCA locker-rooms, then what about the partially erect? Is that “partially unacceptable”? Or an “absolute right”? The male advice columnist doesn’t explain. “You’re on your own, toots! Sucks being you!” the guy seems to say, like the transgender activists, assigning no value or concern to the female experience of male sexual assault. The issue raised by the woman’s question -namely that any man at any time can claim to be transgender to access the women’s change room to freely abuse women sexually, as was done to her, was poo-pooed and the victim was lectured on the importance of men’s sexual rights.
In fact, the whole matter was dropped, with the columnist hand-waving away female sexual assault and the transactivists doing the same (but calling the woman a liar as well) until transactivists began also claiming that the newspaper should not in future publish any sexual assault claims from any woman, ever, if the male perpetrator invokes a Gender Identity. The Toronto Star eventually decided that ongoing transactivist accusations that the victim falsified her claims reflected badly on the paper, having published them. So after two weeks of allowing transgender activists to rail heartlessly against a 70 year old victim of a sexual assault, the Star finally published a rebuttal today titled “Transgender Rights Letter No Hoax”.
Star editor Kathy English writes:
“I can tell you I have telephoned and talked to the North York woman whose name is on the email sent to Star ethics columnist Ken Gallinger in October. I have also confirmed that the YMCA of Greater Toronto received a similar letter from a former member in late fall. Last week, an executive of the organization contacted the same North York woman I talked with.
If this woman’s letter was a hoax perpetuated by organized forces opposed to transgender rights, as many in the transgender community through North America and beyond have declared with all certainty, then it is indeed a grand and elaborate one played on both the Star and the YMCA.
The woman would not agree to come forward publicly for this column. She spoke confidentially to me, in line with her expectation of confidentiality in the ethics column. “I am asking the Star to protect my privacy,” she said. “I would not rest easy if any group decided to approach me personally.”
She told me she is 70. She said the incident she described in her letter to Gallinger in which a naked “man” claiming to be a transgender woman behaved inappropriately happened “a couple of years ago” in the late afternoon in the women’s locker room of the Toronto Y on Sheppard Ave.
She said she shared her concerns with the Y manager at the time but felt she was not taken seriously. She said the branch manager contacted her in the fall after she sent her letter and she was again contacted by a senior executive of the Y following publication of the Star column.”
“She felt she was not taken seriously”. It is no surprise the victim is still seeking answers after the traumatizing sexual assault that has been ignored, dismissed, and “not taken seriously” again and again and again. By the YMCA. By transactivists. By the ethics advice columnist at the local newspaper, Ken Gallinger,who actually wrote an entire column today expressing his “deep resentment” that allowing women to report the sexual assaults that men commit MAY MAKE MEN LOOK BAD. Disgusting! Truly disgusting. It would not be surprising if the victim was still traumatized every time she stepped into a locker room to disrobe. It would not be surprising if she felt stressed by the prospect of her granddaughters using the locker room at the YMCA, or anywhere else where Gender Identity laws erase the rights of women and girls to privacy, including the right to be free from strange males forcing us to view their erections as they watch us struggle to change out of a wet bathing suit in a public locker room.
File this one under “unintended consequences” for Lesbians, Gays, and Women’s Rights advocates living in Ontario. MPP Cheri DiNovo announced Friday that bill C-389, “Toby’s Act”, the 2012 bill she sponsored which intended to protect the rights of transgender persons, actually makes all same-sex gatherings illegal in the province. This will come as some surprise to many lesbians and gays who often exercise their rights to assemble freely in meetings, conferences, and social groups with other same-sex persons. In addition, DiNovo claims the right of Ontarian women to assemble in any same-sex gatherings: whether they be reproductive rights orgs, Islamic faith gatherings, or lesbian support groups- has been eliminated by her bill. She has appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Council to back up her legal position.
DiNovo made her announcement in response to male complaints surrounding a small group of feminists holding a female-only meeting in a Toronto art gallery. DiNovo characterized same-sex meetings as “reprehensible” and vowed to use Toby’s Act to eliminate and prosecute current and future same-sex gatherings of women or lesbians in the province. “I’m hoping that now under Toby’s law, this will be considered illegal.”
Somehow I doubt this was the intent of the women, lesbians and gays who supported DiNovo and the passage of Toby’s Act. Like Washington State’s Colleen Francis using that state’s non-discrimination act to exercise his “right” to expose his penis to schoolgirls in women’s locker rooms, Toby’s Act had the unintended consequence of eliminating the rights of women, gays, lesbians, muslims, feminists, to hold same-sex gatherings. Presumably this also eliminates the rights of transgender people to assemble in sex-segregated meetings, although DiNovo has not yet clarified that point. Planned Parenthood Toronto sponsored “Breaking Through The Cotton Ceiling” seminars for transgenders to strategize how to convince lesbians to accept sex with penises. The “cotton ceiling” in that case referred to the underwear of lesbians. These public meetings were restricted to male transgenders only.
Canada faces another set of unintended consequences with Bill C-279, the Federal Gender Identity Act, which is set for a vote in the next legislative session. This bill, like Toby’s Act, purports to eliminate discrimination based on “Gender Identity”, which is the right to identify with the social role of the opposite sex. Obviously this proposed new legal “sex-role” status is problematic for those – such as feminists and progressives- who believe stereotypes based on sex are antiquated, sexist, offensive, (not to mention they sanction inequality for women and girls). Many feel the government should not promote the belief that citizens should look/behave/think certain ways based on our reproductive sex (or our identification with the opposite sex). But what are the other, specific, legal consequences of Bill C-279, which like the erosion of women’s and gay rights to assemble caused by DiNovo’s Toby’s Act, might not become apparent until after the law is passed?
According to Senator Nancy Ruth, the first lesbian Senator in Canada, we already know what some of the unintended consequences of Bill C-279 will be. From the DailyExtra:
“Women and girls in Canada are not protected from hate speech under the Criminal Code, and this bill does not rectify that when it could,” Ruth said.
“For 35 years, across numerous bills, Parliament has told the girls and women of Canada that, despite alarming rates of violence against girls and women, violence that typically includes hate speech, they are not worthy of protection,” she explained.
“The omission is not an oversight. In 1985, the federally appointed Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution said that there was ‘ample evidence’ indicating women were the targets of hate material. The committee recommended that the Criminal Code hate laws be amended to extend protection to women, but no Parliament has done that. Why? I have spoken before in this chamber about this gap in the law,” she continued.
“This bill will privilege men who choose to become women over women who are born female,” Ruth said. “While I do not question the good intentions of the sponsor and the supporters of the bill, I simply do not understand how they could advance this bill without including all women. Passage of Bill C-279 will mean that only if a woman is born a man who later chooses to identify as a woman will she receive protection, but a woman born a woman will not receive the same protection.“
Senator Ruth has proposed an amendment to Bill C-279 which simply maintains “sex” as a protected status along with “gender identity”. This will prevent sex-based protections for women from being eliminated by Bill C-279, in the way that Toby’s Act inadvertently eliminated the legal rights of women and lesbians to free assembly.
Women of Canada must not lose human rights in order to protect the rights of transgender people, due to sloppy lawmaking. The battle to reclaim women’s human right to assemble- that DiNovo claims was lost by the passage of Toby’s Act- will now start its long winding legal trail towards correction, after the fact. With Bill C-279 we have an opportunity to correct an unintended consequence before it occurs, and we have a lesbian Senator making a stand for our rights, right now. Do not leave her standing alone. She needs your support on this issue. Please organize to support Senator Ruth’s amendment now. Create awareness of the issue among women’s groups and legislators. Write letters to the editor. Contact her office and ask what you can do to help.
Let us protect the rights of all Canadians. Including the rights of Women and Girls.
[bolding by me-GM]
The Right to “Gender Identity” : A Clash with the Rights of Women – submission to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill – Professor Sheila Jeffreys
January 12, 2013
Submission to the public consultation on the Human
Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 21 December
From: Professor Sheila Jeffreys, School of Social and Political Sciences,
University of Melbourne. Author of a number of book chapters and refereed
journal articles on transgender politics and law.
The right to ‘gender identity’: a clash with the rights of women
This submission addresses the addition of a new ‘protected attribute’ in the
Human Rights Bill, that of ‘gender identity’. The protected attribute of ‘sex’,
under which women are protected from discrimination, is still in the list, but
adding the new category of ‘gender identity’, could potentially create a clash of
rights between male-bodied transgenders on the one hand, and those
disadvantaged on the grounds of sex, women. In other jurisdictions, such
legislation has seen the emergence of successful legal challenges in which
malebodied transgenders have sought access to spaces previously reserved for
women, including women’s services such as sheltered housing, women’s toilets
and women’s prisons.
The demands of transgender activists to have ‘gender identity’ included in
human rights legislation were first articulated in detail in the US in the 1995
International Bill of Transgender Rights (Frye, 2000). It demanded the right to
express the ‘gender identity’ of choice in whatever way the exponent desired,
particularly in any spaces previously reserved for women. An important right in
the Bill is that of entering spaces set aside by or for women, ‘The Right of
Access to Gendered Space and Participation in Gendered Activity’ (Frye, 2000:
Since then, equality and human rights legislation has been updated and created
in states across the western world that incorporates the ‘right’ to express ‘gender
identity’. Women’s and feminist groups are not invited to contribute to
consultation on such changes as if they would have nothing relevant to say,
despite the fact that men may, under such legislation, gain the right to be
recognised in law as ‘women’. Women are the ‘absent referent’, not officially
referred to, despite the fact that it is ‘women’ that the majority of those persons
who wish to express their ‘gender rights’ seek to emulate. There is no
suggestion in legislation advancing a right to gender identity that women will be
included in or advantaged by the developments. Rather, in an increasingly
vigorous feminist challenge, critics argue that such legislation creates two
singular difficulties for women’s interests (Brennan and Hungerford, 2011). It
removes the possibility of women only spaces, and it promotes gender
stereotypes that have long been recognised by feminist theorists as the basic
organising mechanism of male domination (MacKinnon, 1989; Jeffreys, 2005).
The definition of gender identity in the Australian 2012 Draft legislation clashes
with protections on the basis of sex, through a confusion of the two categories.
Gender identity will cover people, ‘born as one sex who identify as another
sex’, in other words it is a mental condition. There is no requirement that to
acquire protection on the grounds of gender identity, a person should have
embarked upon hormonal or surgical treatment to change ‘gender’. Indeed it
does seem likely to cover both those men who cross-dress occasionally, or on
the weekend, as well as those who do so on a more permanent basis. Women’s
need for sex-segregated spaces that offer protection for women’s dignity and
privacy, and which take account of the vulnerabilities that women suffer in a
society in which too many men are violent towards women and girls, has
generally been recognised in exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation. The
right to gender identity, however, has the potential to void this protection. Read the rest of this entry »
Brilliant, incisive legal analysis of the issues involved in the Colleen Francis Evergreen College case, Washington State statutes and the problem with “Gender Identity” protections overriding sex-based legal protections for Women. Also applies to the Robert/Michelle Kosilek case. Must read.
Popular progressive political discourse, fueled by the sloppy legal strategy of LGBT organizations, insists that adding “gender identity” to existing anti-discrimination statutes by legislative amendment is an urgent and necessary legal protection for transgendered and other gender non-conforming people. In fact, however, judicial interpretation of Sex discrimination law already prohibits gender-related sex-stereotyping. More than being benignly redundant, the current legislative strategy actually creates a big problem: it defines and positions “gender identity” as a new protected legal class that overrides Sex as a preexisting protected legal class. In practice, these classes come to clash in Sex-segregated spaces when a single individual’s “gender identity” is prioritized over every other person’s physical and legal Sex. I will discuss a particular example of this situation below.
Sex, as a legal category, is important in its own right. Whereas Sex is the necessary legal foundation for the protection and maintenance of women’s reproductive freedoms, “gender identity” is…
View original post 2,360 more words
Olympia WA School Officials: State Gender Identity provision overrides Title IX Equality for Girls Swim Teams
October 7, 2012
Two Washington State high-school Girls Swim Teams were stripped of their Federal Title IX rights by Olympia Washington School officials after the teens and their parents refused to allow the girls to shower with a middle-aged retired military man calling himself Colleen. The man was discovered in the women’s sauna by a high-school teen girls swim team. Parents refused to let their minor girls undress in front of him. As a result, local school officials have forced the girls into a small ancillary locker room space and given use of the women’s locker room to the male.
From KIRO 7 Eyewitness News:
“OLYMPIA, Wash. — A transgender woman said she was discriminated against after using the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College. Colleen Francis was using the sauna in a women’s locker room inside the recreation center at the school late in September. The same facility is used by two high school girls swim teams from Olympia, who also practice in the pool. KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reporter Deborah Horne spoke with Francis about the incident in which a woman told her to leave.
[Click to watch Video HERE ]
“I looked at her and said, ‘Excuse me?’ And she said, ‘You have to leave, I’ll be right back,’” said Francis. “She wouldn’t identify herself. All she said was that there were a couple of girls that came upstairs to the pool, and said that there was a man in the sauna.”
Officials at the school told KIRO 7 that they have been working with the Olympia School District, which leases space at the pool. According to state law, it requires equal access to state facilities regardless of gender identity.
So they stripped the girls of their Title IX right as females to equal facilities and forced them into a small private ancillary facility to the main sports complex. A second-class facility.
Francis, a white heterosexual male, compares his right to undress among juvenile girls to the Black Civil Rights Movement:
On WHAT PLANET do parents want their little girls to shower and sauna with middle-aged men?!? On WHAT PLANET are the penile freedoms of middle-aged men INFRINGED UPON by children?
Before Title IX, female sports teams were shuttered off into small unequal locker rooms and sports facilities. Olympic WA school officials have reinstituted this illegal policy by punishing teenage girls and their families for keeping their children safe. Applying contact with this man, who merely two years ago described himself as a male fetishistic cross-dresser, as a condition of equal rights under Federal Title IX is discriminatory and illegal.
Colleen Francis is a 45 year old man who retired from the US Army after 20 years as a supply sergeant. Married three times, he has three adult children and two daughters aged 7 and 5. His cross-sex hormones are provided by VA Medical, as well as a cocktail of psychiatric meds, lithium and antabuse prescribed for a troubling history that he details at length on a blog at the “Transgender Lesbian Space”of the puddygirl dating site for women. He says he is known as “Fae Raven” (not to be confused with the UK fetish model of the same name) in the “BDSM Community” and describes himself as:
“I am polyamorous, bisexual (I very much favor women though, and my therapist calls me a lesbian…makes me smile) and kinky.”
“Colleen Brenna” means “Raven Girl” in Irish Gaelic. A former rodeo rider, he is an avid hunter and competitive handgun shooter.
He started wearing a low-dose estrogen patch two years ago and has written that he has no intention of ever getting “sex reassignment” surgery, stating “Yes, I still have those parts too, although they aren’t disgusting for me. I’ve never hated then. I saw LONG ago, in childhood that those were what I was given, and beung the very, very sexual creature that I was/am, I used them. Enthusiastically. I decided not to be robbed of the blessing of sexuality simply because I came wrapped in the wrong package.” [sic]
He describes his VA funded estrogen treatments as making him “tired and very horny”
The VA also funds his education at Olympia WA Evergreen State College. Francis performed in the university presentation of Eve Ensler’s “The Vagina Monologues”, an experience he describes on his wordpress blog thusly: “ I suddenly find myself in a community of Cunts.”
He lists his life interests as: “drawing, cooking, transgender issues,polyamory, witchcraft, nature, fishing, art, poetry, ocean, women, sex, sexuality, emotions, magic, magick, goddess, reading, erotica, pornography, nudity, crafting, leatherwork, firearms, knives, swords, paganism, wicca, LGBT issues, beauty, gender issues, kink, spirituality, guns, makeup, shoes, boots, corsets, selkies” [sic]
and describes himself as “at once a teen girl and a woman wise beyond her years.”
He says the first thing people notice about him is “I obviously stand out as the one who is not a genetic female.”
Colleen’s “fae_raven.livejournal” bdsm account has been purged.
Olympia WA school officials claim that Title IX protections – which force schools to provide equal access to sports facilities to females [“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”] is overridden by Washington State’s Gender Identity protections. The Washington state law is being used to attach a condition to Title IX equality for females, and that condition is that equal access to facilities for teenage girls is predicated upon their willingness to undress and shower in front of a self-described “kinky” “horny” middle-aged heterosexual man who refers to himself as “a teen girl”. Colleen Francis’ right to express a self-concept of his penis’s “Gender Identity”, and his right to be free from discrimination for his psychiatric “Gender Identity Disorder” diagnosis should NOT override Federal Title IX protections for females. Girls should NOT be shuttled off to inferior sports facilities in deference to one male’s feelings about himself- OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
This Washington State Gender Identity law, passed in 2006, is proving to be deeply discriminatory against the rights of females in its practical application. The rights of females under Title IX should not be overridden by Washington State statute, or attached with a condition of teen-aged girls showering with “kinky” middle-aged men.
Who is looking out for the legal title IX rights of these juvenile female athletes?
It is super important for us Lesbian and Female – and gay male- members of the “LGBT” to make the general public (like these girl’s parents, and the media) aware that we do NOT support the infringement on equal rights for girls by men like Colleen Francis, and that we do NOT support Gender Identity Laws which override equality laws designed to protect women and girls. We do NOT want to teach girls to ignore their own sense of safety and we do NOT want to penalize girls who simply want a safe and comfortable and equal place to swim.
Statistics Show the Difference in Rates of Violent Crimes Against Women Committed by ‘Transwomen’ Versus Non-Transgender Males
April 7, 2015
Surprise: There is zero statistical difference. The Transgender Law Center, HRC, GLAAD, ACLU, National Center for Transgender Equality, et al., have failed to cite a single study refuting the evidence that transgender males (“transwomen”) commit crimes against women and girls at exactly the same rate as any other males.
Several states and municipalities are considering bills designed to protect the rights of women to safety and privacy in areas of public nudity, such as restrooms and locker rooms, and areas where women are especially vulnerable to male violence, such as prisons, domestic violence shelters, mental health facilities, etc.
These bills are proposed in response to the elimination of sex-segregated spaces caused by “Gender Identity” lobbyists, who claim that biological sex is a “personal feeling” which lacks all description or objective characteristics and is unknowable to anyone but the person who “feels it”. This surprising legal attack on women’s rights has gained remarkable ground by piggy-backing onto the established political capital of the increasingly obsolete gay rights (or “LGBT”) organizations, while utilizing the financial capital of wealthy heterosexual closeted crossdressing males.
Many of these anti-women “Gender Identity” statutes were passed quickly and quietly in the guise of “equality” and “anti-discrimination” measures, and this strategy was by design:
“We have to acknowledge that we have largely achieved our successes by flying under the radar”, (then) Transgender Law Center Director Masen Davis stated eighteen months ago, “It is a secret at Transgender Law Center and I’ll ‘come out’ today. We do a lot, really quietly. We have made some of our biggest gains: that nobody has noticed. We are very quiet and thoughtful about what we do, because we want to make sure we have the win more than we want to have the publicity. And that has been largely effective. We’re not the only one, and many organizations have done this, and we’ve been able to get a lot done. But I need to tell you that the days of doing things quietly are coming to an end. It is time to get ready for a close-up, folks.”
That close-up, at least in regards to “Gender Identity” laws which eliminate protected spaces for women (removing the legally protected category of sex entirely and replacing it with men’s personal “feelings”) is now shining the spotlight, all right. On this guy, and this one, and this one, and these guys, and all of these.
The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women. [Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885]
Are all transwomen predators? Of course not: They are predators at exactly the same rates as any other males. Now that the public is starting to pay attention, that genie won’t be going back into the bottle anytime soon. What is once seen cannot be unseen. Especially when what is seen is some creepy pervert in the locker room waving his penis around in front of your kids.
Years ago, some prescient Lesbian Feminist legal strategists proposed a compromise: allowing men’s “Gender Identity” to override sex-based protections for women if those males had undergone some sort of medical or psychological treatment for “Gender Dysphoria”. They were attacked mercilessly by “Transwomen” for this suggestion. Their names were widely smeared, they were threatened with violence, stalked, their employers contacted, their home addresses published on-line and their children threatened with death. If any members of the transgender movement objected to the carnage, they did so silently.
And the suggestion that such males could perhaps be served by “Gender Neutral” areas has been widely rejected as well. “I will pee on the floor before I use a gender-neutral bathroom”, says TransSupport.Org founder Robin Lynn Frank.
The transgender movement’s strategy continues to be:
Deny, Deny, Deny.
Silence dissent through threats and violence.
Apply slurs to feminists who prioritize the needs of women over the gender-feels of males.
Censoring and No-Platforming feminist events.
“No True Transwoman” propaganda, which excludes offenders (on the basis that they don’t have “true feelings” of gender).
Etc. Etc. In short, the same “pre-spotlight” strategies that served them well in the past.
You can read a fascinating current discussion between the two sides of this dilemma, Feminists vs. Transgenderists, by clicking HERE. .