“As the person who made this policy change happen before I hit peak trans I know first hand that it will be horrible for womyn”, says Sarah Fraas, the student leader of the Smith College campaign which forced the historic women-only college to admit males who “identify as” female.
Fraas created the “Trans Women Belong Here” group and ran their “Smith Q&A” website and twitter account. She organized the public protests, and hand-lettered the signs for the attendees herself. “Look at me on the far left before I woke up/shaved my head. So surreal to see my handwriting on all of these stupid signs” she says in hindsight in a recent post on her new blog.
The “Transwomen at Smith Q&A” Facebook page, modeled after Sarah Fraas’s website but apparently managed by another student who still supports men at the school, posted an advisory on December 17:
“Dear Q & A supporters
It has come to our attention within the past few hours that both our tumblr (formerly smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com) and twitter (@transwomenatsc) have been edited by an outside source to reflect trans exclusionary and transmisogynist views that this organization does not hold, and actively opposes.
We have confirmed that these pages have been accessed by someone who used to be involved in our organization. This person has changed the passwords and these outlets are no longer affiliated with Q&A.
You can access a preserved copy of our tumblr here: https://web.archive.org/…/…/http://smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com/ If anyone with web expertise knows something about transferring this data to a freestanding, new tumblr, please get in touch (though it is finals- we will do our best to respond). We do not recommend accessing these former accounts.”
Sarah Fraas’s original campaign was sparked by an autogynephile Connecticut male high school student named Calliope Wong who demanded the right to force women to play along with his sexual fantasy that he is female. Wong has since declined admission to Smith and now runs a loony blog where he repetitively posts demands for an honorary degree from the women’s college for hurting his feelings juxtaposed with pleas for his various GoFundMe campaigns:
“Now, I get that I’m 20 and that most Honorary Degrees are conferred upon people who’ve done decades of work in their respective fields. But trans women facing these compounded forms of violence, in general we don’t have a record of living very long or with very high standards of living. There are few remaining trans elders beyond the age of 40, as it is. We must account for why.
This is why I think we should make this plan happen.
Please share this plan with Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, Mills College, Wellesley College, Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, and other women’s college alum and current students.
Let’s discuss strategy.”
Not only did Sarah Fraas Spend three (very expensive!) years at Smith spearheading Wong’s womanhood project- she went that extra distance and targeted Lesbian Feminists and gender critical women who published opinions which contradicted his. She obsessively stalked women who disagreed online and tracked down their personal information, including their employers, whom she then contacted, over and over, sending them falsified claims of wrongdoing in ghastly letters, like a crazy person, and she used the upper class cache of the Smith College reputation to do so. For three years.
Now, she says “radical feminism saved my life”. Male individuals are no longer female, and that “ I may also write about going down the male-approval trans BS “transwomen deserve to be in women’s spaces” rabbithole thing at some point…”
O-kay. That totally fucked up -arguably criminal- “thing” she did for three years might someday be redressed.
No urgency there. No apparent obligation to undo what she has done. No dashing off apologetic letters to women’s employers. No consciousness of harm done by her real-life stalking of regular working women she disagreed with. No apology to lesbians. No campaign- or even a note- sent to the Smith College board that she lobbied passionately and urgently for years on Mr. Wong’s behalf. She still cites her trans social justice award nomination on her LinkedIn. But hey. She might write about that whole male-approval “rabbithole thing” that she did. At some point. Maybe.
January 6, 2016
Woman: deeply felt personal identification lacking any specific definable characteristics
Lesbian: homosexual female, or, heterosexual male femulator, or, femulating male who partners with other femulating males in homosexual male relationships.
Female: Egg producing member of sexually dimorphic species, or, a feeling some men have which lacks any specific characteristics.
Heterosexual: opposite-sex relations, or, same-sex relations in which one partner has a deeply felt psychological belief that they produce gametes of the other sex.
Gender: comprised of three parts-
Gender Identity: Mental Reproductive Biology, Brain Sex, Human psychological perception of reproductive gamete production independent of actual biology. Coexists with, but overrides perception of actual reproductive biology. When incongruent to sexual organs, compels urgent need to change social recognition of reproductive capacity for unknown reasons, unrelated to social sex roles, this imperative manifests with Extreme body modifications, Violence towards others, Self-harm.
Gender Roles: A sex-based system of social order designed to maintain female (offspring bearing) subordination to male (non-gestating) control via ritualized behaviors of submission for females (femininity) versus domination behaviors for males (masculinity). Or, a menu of empowering choices accessible through body modifications, threats of violence, and threats of self harm.
Gender Expression: Personality, recast through the lens of sex stereotypes as male or female traits.
Transfeminism: Feminism that “crosses over” into its opposite; Anti-feminism.
Transfemininity: Aggressive masculinity.
December 29, 2015
The latest in the ongoing saga of the contentious new transgender student policy at the Virginia district. This is actually pretty funny. Apparently the district never defined the newly protected category of “Gender Identity” but they did warn students in the Student Handbook that they will be suspended if they discriminate against it. The suit, filed December 21 by district resident Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition hinges on that fact, and also that the state has a legal principal, “Dillion’s Rule” that prohibits municipalities from creating their own protected classes.
The LOLsuit’s plaintiffs are Lafferty, Fairfax County high school student Jack Doe, his parents John and jane Doe, and his friends, also John and Jane Doe. [PDF]
From the complaint:
“68. On May 7, 2015 “gender identity” and “gender expression” were added to the Booklet as grounds for student discipline, but Defendant did not define “gender identity” or “gender expression” anywhere in the Booklet. (Exhibit F).
- Neither “gender identity” nor “gender expression” are defined in the Virginia Constitution or Code of Virginia, including Section 22.1-279.3 which Defendant cites as the authority for drafting and revising the Booklet.
- Jack Doe is particularly distressed about the Board’s decision to add “gender identity” to the non-discrimination policy and to the student code of conduct because “gender identity” is not defined in either the policy or the code, so Jack Doe has no idea what words or conduct might be interpreted as discriminating on the basis of “gender identity,” and therefore does not know what speech or conduct might subject him to discipline, including suspension.
- Jack Doe is distressed about the Board’s decision to add “gender identity” to the non- discrimination policy and student code of conduct because he understands that the decision will mean that the restrooms, locker rooms and other intimate spaces set apart, respectively, for boys and girls, will now be open to students who might have the physical features of one sex but are permitted to use the bathroom of the opposite sex which the student “identifies” as, whatever that means.
- Because the new policy and code of conduct are not sufficiently defined, Jack Doe has no way of knowing whether he can, for example, question someone who appears to be a girl using the boys’ restroom or locker room, refer to someone by a certain pronoun or even compliment someone on his/her attire without being subject to discipline for “discrimination.”
- Jack Doe is nervous about having to think about every statement or action and its potential sexual connotations to third parties before interacting with students and teachers, and the prospect of having to interact in such an uncertain environment creates significant distress to the point that it adversely affects his ability to participate in and benefit from the educational program.
- Jack Doe is terrified of the thought of having to share intimate spaces with students who have the physical features of a girl, seeing such conduct as an invasion of his privacy, invasion of fellow students’ privacy and a violation of the though patterns and understanding about male and female relationships which are part of his cultural values.
- Because of Defendant’s actions, Jack Doe cannot regard school as a safe place where he can learn what he needs to be a productive and well-educated adult without fear of harassment, being charged with harassment, and having his speech and conduct chilled by the fear of reprisals or of discipline for unknowingly violating the ambiguous code of conduct.
- Jack Doe’s ability to fully and freely participate in and benefit from the school’s educational program has been significantly diminished by the Defendant’s actions in adding the undefined terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the non-discrimination policy and student code of conduct.”
December 22, 2015
November 26, 2015
Introducing: ‘Transgender Trend’ an international organization for parents skeptical of the “trans kids” narrative
November 20, 2015
A group of concerned parents has announced the formation of ‘Transgender Trend’, an international organization that aims to educate the public, support families and youth, and provide an alternative to the medical “transgender children” trend.
From their website:
Welcome to Transgender Trend
We have set up this website with the aim of providing an alternative source of evidence-based information which questions the theory, diagnosis and treatment of ‘trans kids.’ The mainstream media has been uniformly and uncritically accepting of the transgender diagnosis of children and in the absence of any public scrutiny the number of children referred to gender clinics has risen exponentially over the last few years.
We question who gains from this lifelong medicalisation of children, and whose vested interests are fueling the promotion of transgender ideology. We ask why it has become impossible to debate the subject without being labeled ‘transphobic.’
We’re not ‘anti’ transgender; those who suffer true ‘gender dysphoria’ need access to treatment, understanding and support, but we have serious questions about the current treatment paradigm. In particular we think there needs to be extreme caution before treating children. The theory of gender as an identity which overrides biological sex is just that: a theory. It is new, untested, and its application to children who are in the process of developing their identities contradicts all we know about child and adolescent development and psychology.
There are very different reasons why a four-year-old may insist they are the opposite sex compared to a teenager making the decision after searching online; there are also different reasons why boys and girls may want to transition. We will be differentiating between the ages and sexes of children as we build the content of this site, rather than lumping all kids together as a homogeneous group under the ‘trans’ umbrella. Much more research needs to be done regarding these distinct groups.
This site is not a forum for debate about our position, so please respect the fact that we are not interested in hearing arguments ‘for’ the transgender diagnosis of kids. Any such comments will not be published. That view is extensively available online already and is not the point of this site. However, we welcome contributions from supporters, please email us at the address at the top of the page.
Huge thanks to the feminists who have been documenting the rise of transactivist ideology for years, it would have taken a lot longer to get this far on the site without your work.
We hope that parents, the media and policy-makers will all make use of this site as a source of information, as well as young people and anyone who would like to know more about the subject and is frustrated at the one-sided view currently promoted.
Everyone is very welcome.
‘Transgender Trend’ Spokesperson Stephanie Davies-Arai is a specialist in teacher training and the author of “Communicating With Kids”
Please take a few moments to forward this information to media contacts, particularly those with an interest in covering the “transgender children” trend.
HERO crushed in Houston as public becomes educated about the impact of “Gender Identity” on sex-segregated areas of public nudity
November 4, 2015
Last night the “LGBT Rights” movement faced its first momentous loss following last summer’s victory in the decades-long fight for equal marriage rights, as Houston’s HERO ordinance was voted out by a stunning 62-38% margin. The ordinance had claimed to offer protection against discrimination for 15 categories: Sex, Race, Color, Ethnicity, National Origin, Age, Familial status, Marital status, Military status, Religion, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Genetic information, Gender Identity, Pregnancy, but only two of the categories: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, actually changed anything, as the rest are already covered by national and/or state law.
The sticking point for voters was a simple one: The overbroad legal status of “Gender Identity” contains no specific characteristics whatsoever. That’s right! No specific characteristics. The sole characteristic of individuals protected by the legal status of “Gender Identity” is that the individual chooses to claim that legal status, and they can invoke it or discard it at any time or for any reason. In practice, this means that any individual can escape charges of indecent exposure, trespassing, and voyeurism in sex-segregated spaces of public nudity (toilets, locker rooms) simply by stating their desire to invoke “Gender Identity” status. There is no medical requirement or psychiatric diagnosis or evidence of gender nonconformance required. No transgender “transition” (adoption of sex-stereotyped appearance or behavior) is required. Even the protected status of religious faith requires objective characteristics (evidence of duration, participation in religious services). Not so for “Gender Identity”.
What could possibly go wrong with the introduction of a new protected legal status that has no characteristics but which is designed to eliminate the rights of women and girls to areas in public life segregated from males for our privacy and protection against sexual harassment and predation? What could possibly go wrong? Nothing at all, if you are willing to ignore the ever present gauntlet of sexual violence by men against women and girls of all ages, ethnicities, orientations, and yes, even “identity”, across all cultures throughout recorded history. Nothing at all, if you completely disregard the rights of women and girls to participate equally in public life. Which is what those who lobbied for the HERO ordinance and those who push other “Gender Identity” statutes must do, in order to support them.
The “Gender Identity” movement, under the auspices of the Transgender Rights movement, is the first (so-called) “civil rights” campaign whose success relies on removing the rights of another protected category: Women. This conflict of competing minority rights is based on the transgender philosophy that there is something wrong with being transgender. Rather than lobby for rights and protections for individuals who choose to modify their bodies to look like the other sex, or who believe that humans have distinctly different brain functions based on reproduction (and that they possess the “wrong” type), the transgender lobby demands to be recognized as “cisgender” (their word for people outside the Gender Identity movement).
In the wake of the overwhelming failure of Houston’s HERO initiative the men at the helm of the post-equal marriage “LGBT” movement are reacting the only way they can: by continuing to ignore the competing rights of women and girls. They are calling the voters of Houston “haters”, even though they represent the most diverse city in the country who elected a Lesbian mayor for the last three terms. They are calling for more “education” of the public on transgenderism. But that isn’t the problem. No one has a problem with transgenderism. Even the proponents of HERO admit that the measure would have passed easily if it had not sought to remove the equal rights of women and girls. The problem, at least for the Gender Identity movement, is that the general public is now becoming “educated” as to what legal Gender Identity status means to them, and to the women and girls in their lives.
Houston’s Gender Identity advocates did everything right. They did everything that has worked for them in the past:
They attached Gender Identity to the lesbian and gay rights movement.
They spent millions more to campaign than their opponents.
They obscured the conflict of interest with women’s rights by embedding Gender Identity in a long list of established rights for minority groups that everybody agrees with.
They tried to pass it as quietly as they could.
They used their political power to squelch the legal rights of the opposition to contest (later overturned by the Texas supreme court).
They threatened to subpoena the sermons of Houston churches (later withdrawn).
They got Hollywood celebrities to do photo-ops in support.
The President of the United States, as well as 2016 candidates Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders stumped for it.
They called opponents “haters” and “bigots” and “anti-gay”.
They threatened to force important national football and social events to boycott the city.
They called women and girls “fear mongerers” who should simply trust men to refrain from ill-behavior.
They denied overwhelming evidence that male predators will use any means necessary to gain access to potential victims.
They ignored the poll numbers and framed the opposition as fringe right-wing Christian zealots.
In short, they did everything right (by the standards and history of the Gender Identity movement). What they failed to realize is that the public is becoming “educated” about the conflict the transgender movement poses to the rights of women and girls. You can see the same story playing out in Illinois, where the largest school district in the Chicago suburbs, District 211, is facing off against the dubious legal authority of the Obama administration’s Department of Education. The school board voted unanimously that opposite-sex students must simply utilize one of the plentiful privacy booths when using opposite-sex locker rooms. The issue arose after two female students complained about a male student undressing in the girl’s locker room. He was previously given the right to use female restrooms and also given a slot on a female sports team. Obama’s DOE has threatened to strip the district of federal funding (which comprises around 2.5% of their annual budget), unless the male student is permitted to freely expose himself and shower openly with the girls, claiming that “Gender Identity” overrides the rights of women and girls. But, no. The mainstream liberal residents in the district overwhelmingly support drawing the line. They’ve reached “Peak Trans”.
The “problem” in Houston and around the country isn’t that people are “bigots” or require “education”. The problem going forth, at least for the Gender Identity movement, is precisely the opposite.