November 16, 2016
Noted transgender activist Dana Rivers was arraigned Tuesday on charges of committing a brutal triple homicide in Oakland, California in the early hours of Friday, November 11. The victims have been identified as lesbian couple Patricia Wright and Charlotte Reed and their son Toto “Benny” Diambu-Wright.
Rivers allegedly stabbed and then shot the victims in their home, which he then set ablaze in an attempt to destroy evidence. Rivers was apprehended while attempting to flee the scene of the crime on Reed’s motorcycle. He was covered in their blood.
Police state Rivers made statements confessing to the crime. He was arraigned without bail on charges of triple homicide, arson of an inhabited dwelling, and possession of metal knuckles. He faces life without possibility of parole, and potential death sentence.
Rivers’ motive is unknown. The Mercury News reports: “Authorities have not released a motive but have indicated it might have been a dispute over some property”, while Fox Channel KTVU News reported: “Sources said the case is an isolated incident involving a domestic dispute.”
Dana Rivers (formerly David Warfield) rose to national prominence in 1999 when he was removed from his tenured teaching position as an IT instructor at Center High School in Sacramento following allegations that he inappropriately over-shared personal information with students following his on-the-job gender transition.
Rivers was subsequently featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Good Morning America, among other national media. He planned on writing a book and selling a movie version of his life story. With the help of an ACLU attorney Rivers negotiated a $150,000 buy-out of his tenured position and resigned. He discussed his decision in an interview with GenderPAC here: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/trans/1999/interview.with.dana.rivers-12.07.99
“IYF: What are your chances of getting another
teaching job in the public school?
DR: Excellent. Not only am I an award-winning
teacher with years of experience, but California
is in the midst of a serious teacher shortage. To
be honest, I am not worried about getting another
job in a public high school.
IYF: What happens now? I know that you have some
speaking gigs. Do you see yourself continuing as
a gender activist?
DR: I have been thrust into this role and, to be
honest, I love it. It is part of who I am to be
up front, candid, and in the spotlight. I do not
believe that this means I am particularly vain or
ego-centric. Rather, I know I am capable of
speaking out, and it feels good to move the
mountain. As long as people want to hear me, I
am willing to spread the word.
My transition thus far has been easy (yes,
even though I lost my job) compared to my sisters
and brothers who have faced ridicule and physical
harm for their gender difference. I am humbled by
the effort and energy of GenderPAC and the other
organizations who are trying to make a difference.
IYF: You just addressed NGLTF’s ‘Creating Change’
in Oakland and traveled to Washington to meet with
Rep. Barney Frank, among others. Tell us about your
new-found high-profile status as an activist.
DR: It’s been fun, a bit overwhelming, and very
rewarding to have so much attention paid to my
situation. I have been interviewed by newspapers
and radio programs and magazines from as far away
as Germany. ABC News has followed my case closely,
and flew my daughter and me out to New York to be
on Good Morning America. I had to secure the help
of an agent to handle the flood of requests for my
time. A book and movie are being considered.
I actually had Diane Sawyer and a producer
from Oprah Winfrey on the phone at the same time
a few weeks ago. People magazine named me one of
the 25 most intriguing people of 1999, and Jane
magazine named me one of the Gutsiest Women of
the Year. It is amazing! I hope this exposure
gets our message into homes where normal people
can look at me, hear or read about me, and decide
for themselves if I would be a good teacher, or
neighbor, or spouse.”
Rivers was last seen in the media in a 2008 Bay City Reporter article featuring his work as a teacher in the Five Keys Charter School program in the San Francisco County Jail.
A vigil was held yesterday for Benny Diambu-Wright at Berkely High, where the nineteen-year-old graduated from high school last year before enrolling in nursing school. Over a hundred people burned candles and shared memories of the young man and his mothers. Patricia Wright, a special-ed teacher, had worked for the same district for a decade until her retirement last year.
At time of publication, GenderTrender is the only LGBT website to report.
October 28, 2016
October 26, 2016
Dominic Holden of Buzzfeed has published a blockbuster report outlining the split between top-funded LGBT lobbying groups over their ongoing battle to force women to give up areas segregated by sex for women’s privacy and protection from epidemic male sexual violence against women (changing rooms, showers, locker rooms, restrooms, hospital rooms, homeless shelters, lesbian services, domestic violence refuges, prison cells, etc) in order that men who desire to impose themselves on the women in those spaces would enjoy the right to do so.
Turns out the plan of convincing women and girls that male violation of female privacy is actually a Good Thing hasn’t panned out too well, and women still don’t want strange men exposing their dicks and they still don’t like strange males watching them as they wrestle out of a wet bathing suit in the locker room at the YMCA.
This, even though it’s been explained to them that biological sex doesn’t really exist and that the whole global male targeting of women thing isn’t even a thing. Even though they’ve been educated that women’s fear of creepy dudes doing god knows what fucked up thing is actually a kooky form of silly female hysteria and social panic. Even though they’ve been reassured that no man alive would ever shoulder the humiliation of throwing on a wig just to have a free ticket to get their freak on at women’s expense. Even though it’s been explained to them that some men are really scared of the other men in sex segregated spaces and/or that it really, really hurts men’s feelings that women have a boundary against male entry to spaces where they are pulling their pants down or inserting a tampon. Even though they’ve been let to know that any male who believes himself to have “female feelings” is incapable of, through commission or act of omission, taking any action which is harmful towards a female person and no such act has ever been recorded in the history of humankind. Even though they’ve been told that letting guys expose themselves and allowing them to gaze upon women undressing may be part of their prescribed psychiatric treatment plan for a ‘Gender Identity’ that all women must sacrifice their comfort and privacy in order to participate in implementing. Unless they are heartless, cruel, hysterical, prudish, bigoted, crazy, awful, nasty women. Of course. Women who want countless men to suffer gruesome violent deaths by murder and suicide all caused by their selfishness.
Anyway, the LGBT campaign against women’s right to privacy and safety, funded by millions (billions?) hasn’t worked out after a decade or so. To paraphrase Barney Frank’s cogent observation at the time of the ENDA debacle: women don’t want you to inflict your dicks on them. Crazy, huh guys?
Holden’s Buzzfeed piece exposes the breakdown of the alliance of the former Gay Rights Movement and the Transgender Penis Rights Movement and their frustration over their dual inability to coerce consent from unwilling women.
Tough break guys. Who could have seen it coming.
Well worth a read:
September 14, 2016
For the last six years London’s Science Museum has been indoctrinating children into the false pseudoscience of “Brain Sex” via an exhibit designed by transgender activists called “Boy or Girl?” The exhibit was dually funded by the UK government and drug company GlaxoSmithKlein.
According to the website of transgender lobbying youth group Gendered Intelligence the creation of the exhibit was overseen by Dr. Jay Stewart, whose doctorate was awarded in art by Goldsmiths College. Stewart is a testosterone-injecting woman who identifies as transgender.
From the Gendered Intelligence website:
“Dr. Jay Stewart
Jay is co-founder of Gendered Intelligence and chairs the Board of Directors. Jay carries out and oversees the main activities that take place across the organisation. Recently Jay has lead on the projects: ‘What makes your gender? Hacking into the Science Museum’ – a £10,000 project funded by Heritage Lottery Fund with the Science Museum, London – and ‘GI’s Anatomy: a life drawing project for trans and intersex people’ – a £30,000 project funded by the Welcome Trust carried out in collaboration with Central School of Speech & Drama, London Drawing and the Gender Identity Development Service, Tavistock Clinic, NHS Trust. Jay also delivers much of the youth group sessions and is a mentor.”
The ‘Boy or Girl?’ exhibit at the Science Museum taught visitors falsehoods about the science behind sex-stereotypes, claiming traditions of ‘gender’ which privilege males and subordinate females through social rituals of male domination and female submission are ‘hard wired’ in the brain. The museum also presented displays of pharmacology and sex-based prosthetics (breast implants, silicone penises) to children as examples of medical interventions to help them conform to stereotypes of gender.
Included in the exhibit is a ghastly ‘test’ that children can take to determine if they have ‘Pink’ female brains or ‘Blue’ male brains. You can take the test here:
Feminists have criticized the display for years but recent complaints from the feminist parent’s groups FourthWaveNow and TransgenderTrend have succeeded in raising public awareness widely on the issue.
Today the ScienceMuseum announced it would finally take steps to modify the anti-scientific and offensive exhibit.
Excerpted from the ScienceMuseum blog post “A question of sex, gender and how to keep museums up to date” By Alex Tyrrell | 14 September 2016:
“In the past week many of these questions and challenges have been playing on my mind, following a lively discussion on social media about an exhibit on the science of sex and gender in our Who Am I? gallery, which explores the wealth of scientific ideas that inform our understanding of human identity.
I worked on Who Am I? when it was last refreshed back in 2010 and the aim at the time was to present the cutting-edge scientific knowledge of the day on what makes us us, me me and you you. I headed up a team of researchers (we call them Content Developers) who spent many months scouring scientific journals and interviewing countless inspiring researchers from around the world. We also worked with a vast network of eminent geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists and other experts to create the gallery.
Scientific accuracy is vital to the Museum – our reputation depends on it – and we put in place rigorous processes to ensure we get things right, from expert advisory boards who look at the broad messages in an exhibition, to subject specialists who are invited to scrutinise every word we write.
It is now six years since Who am I? was updated – and much of the research featured in the gallery is a decade older. The exhibit in the gallery that has recently received attention on Twitter is titled Boy or Girl? It features stories, objects and research including studies into sexual preference and behaviour, tests to see the sex of an unborn baby, and a section looking at gender identity and the evidence for biological differences between the sexes.
The thinking behind Who am I? – and the sex and gender display in particular – was to communicate the latest research clearly and accurately, but we also believe that featuring contributions from other viewpoints and disciplines is essential when examining a question as complex and profoundly personal as ‘who am I?’.
With this in mind, we chose to include work from numerous artists (including, most famously, Antony Gormley’s Iron Baby) and stories from a range of people who are personally involved in the issues covered. In the sections of Who am I? that examine gender and sex, for instance, we collaborated with a transgender person – ‘Alex’ – whose experiences feature in one of the gallery exhibits.
Some of the comments we have received question the accuracy of the science in the exhibition – and the words and images we chose to explain it. Words such as ‘hardwired’, for instance, which feature on several labels, are today especially and understandably controversial when used in combination with ideas like gender.
Other concerns have been raised about an interactive game in the gallery that explores the male and female brain. Specifically, the game presents studies scientists have carried out to investigate if there are small differences on average in the way that men and women complete certain tasks, largely based around the recognition of abstract shapes and patterns. This game – which dates back 16 years to the gallery’s inception – was designed to be tongue in cheek and provocative (think silly voices akin to a Pathé news reel) and visitors are invited to take some of the real tests that scientists used, scoring male or female ‘brain points’ on a ‘sex-o-meter’ that is coloured pink and blue.
As a Museum we always attempt to present ideas in different ways – labels and objects but also games, animations and ‘interactives’ – and in this case the artistic licence taken in the year 2000 to create a provocative exhibit appears outdated. Certainly from preliminary work looking at the latest scientific evidence, the ideas presented are now in question.
Social attitudes also change. We have received responses from visitors who are concerned about how we feature transgender issues, which are now very much more in the public consciousness than they were back in 2010, let alone the year 2000.
The idea of Who am I? was always to raise questions. We present issues in ways that provoke debate, however we would never want to compromise the accuracy of the content on display.
Of course we would like to keep all of our galleries and exhibitions up-to-date, but with many thousands of objects on show and finite resources and time this is not always possible.
However, with an issue of such scientific and cultural importance as this we have decided it is essential that we look again at the exhibit. We are now talking to leading experts in neuroscience and clinical psychology to consider whether the latest scientific evidence warrants making changes to our exhibit.
Science moves fast, and while it isn’t always possible for us to keep up, on some issues it is essential that we quicken our pace to make sure we haven’t been left behind.
Watch this space for further details.”
Read the full post here:
[Actual screencap of Science Museum test administered to youth]
Incredible, must-see footage of this event:
Women attempt a civil dialogue with Transgender Activists over conflicting rights!
Female Erasure : What You Need To Know About Gender Politics’ War on Women, the Female Sex and Human Rights
June 8, 2016
Less than 48 hours since the announcement of the upcoming Female Erasure anthology and the anti-women, anti-lesbian, anti-speech activists are already swarming with efforts to stop its publication.
The book, to be published by Tidal Time Publishing under editor Ruth Barrett, features a forward by Germaine Greer and the writings of fifty women from various perspectives and backgrounds. The volume should serve as a wonderful primer for anyone interested in the conflict between women and “gender”.
Needless to say, the individuals who are invested in forcibly imposing “gender” on women and girls -wish to censor female speech about the worldwide, violent, reproductive sex-based oppression of women and girls which transcends all cultures and eras.
Anti-feminist and anti-gay activists -mainly of the transgender variety- are already waging a campaign of harassment against the editor, the contributors, and the fundraising website being used to crowdfund the project.
Regular GenderTrender readers know that it is a rare occasion indeed that I request readers and supporters to take a particular action. I figure readers are grown-ups who can make up their own damn minds about any action they want or need to take, without me nudging them. Same with the editorial content. I present information, people can take it or leave it. I’ve never promoted my work, and I’ve never tried to censor sites with opposing views.
I am making an exception in this case. Please donate to the fundraiser for this book, and also publicize it using your blog, personal contacts or social media. If you can spare ten bucks or more, please kick it in the pot. Whether you are gay or straight, black or white, female or male, left wing or right wing, anti-gender or trans, please support the free speech of feminists critical of “gender” (and free speech in general). Thank you.
A personal note about myself. Which is even more rare than a nudge to take action on this site. I am in this book. Specifically, my book review of convicted murderer Robert Kosilek’s “memoir”, a piece I am incredibly proud of and exemplifies the best of GenderTrender in my opinion. I can’t tell you how incredibly proud I am to be published alongside Germaine Greer! Sheila Jeffreys! Elizabeth Hungerford! Lierre Keith! Julia Long! and the rest- too many fabulous names to list here. This is a really big deal to me- one of the proudest moments of my life!
Please make it happen. You can do so here:
ANTIOCH COLLEGE STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO ANTIOCH REVIEW ESSAY, “THE SACRED ANDROGEN: THE TRANSGENDER DEBATE” BY DANIEL HARRIS
May 5, 2016
Full article: http://review.antiochcollege.org/sacred-androgen-transgender-debate-daniel-harris Daniel Harris’s essay will be reposted on GenderTrender in full if it is censored.
It has come to our attention that an article published in the Winter 2016 issue of The Antioch Review is stirring debate in our campus and alumni communities and within the broader transgender community. Daniel Harris’ views are his own, and based on the response of some readers, are deeply offensive to many transgender individuals and supporters. Antioch College does not condone or always agree with the ideas and viewpoints expressed in the Review. We do, however, have confidence in the Review’s editor and editorial process, and support a key Antiochian value—the free expression of ideas and opinions, even when they run counter to our own. As a college, we encourage our students, faculty, and the broader community to engage in critical thought and dialogue around important issues, including this one. We believe commitments to the ideals of free expression and support for LGBTQ human and civil rights are not…
View original post 6 more words