December 1, 2016
WAR ON LESBIANS.
I’ve worked the door at various lesbian events. That shit ‘aint pretty. LESBIAN ONLY. Sorry genderqueer non binary trans masc boo. NOT FOR YOU. Sorry autogynephile heterosexual male fantasists. NOT FOR YOU. You need to PUT A FOOT UP THE ASS of IDIOTS who don’t RESPECT lesbian spaces.
This is a WAR on LESBIAN SPACES.
“Queers” are not lesbian.
“FTMs” are not lesbian.
“Transwomen” are men.
Lesbian Culture Needs a HUGE FUCKING BOUNCER. ALWAYS.
Transgender athletics made the news this week when ‘Transman’ athlete Mason Johnson, born female, dominated the men’s rugby division mere months after undergoing a medical ‘gender transition’ to male..ish.
Aww. You caught me. I’m just kidding. Johnson instead reasonably announced she was delaying her ‘gender transition’ so she could remain competitive in rugby by remaining on the women’s team:
Because Johnson knew that no amount of medical intervention, no science, no testosterone injections or doping, or proclamations of her ‘male identity’ would allow her to compete as an elite female athlete on an elite male team in a sport specifically designed to measure the human capacity for violent battery and team assault committed by individuals intentionally bred for thousands of years to maximize those capacities: males, whose very physiology has been distilled for the sole purpose of violently controlling the freedoms of people like her: females.
Females may outperform males in long-jump skying and endurance swimming, and target shooting, but in bloodsports, not so much. Not yet. Like restrooms, male sports should be open to all who wish to use them. Women’s spaces, not so much.
Speaking of which: a man named Jillian Bearden (Jonathan Bearden) won the top prize of the female division at cycling’s El Tour De Tucson on his first attempt, by demanding that everyone else pretend he is female because he started taking estrogen pills a year ago, on the premise that feminized males are an abject, tragic lot, so pathetic and worthy of pity that anyone with a heart should dash their own interests (and common sense) to accommodate them.
“Transgender Cyclist is Top Female Finisher at El Tour De Tucson” proclaimed the headline about the male athlete in an Arizona Daily Star article by reporter Ezra Amacher that failed to even mention the name of the actual female winner (Anna Sparks!). http://tucson.com/sports/local/transgender-cyclist-is-top-female-finisher-at-el-tour-de/article_2c7d291f-4376-57a6-9578-3831353032bc.html
“Transgender Cyclist’s Win in Tucson Was Fairer Than It Seems” mansplained the Star’s Tim Stellar. Stellar goes on to quote without investigation the authority of a transgender radiology tech who also competes as a male against women: Joanna (John) Harper. Harper claims to have objectively studied 7 other male runners who desire to compete against women (one of whom famously exited the testing pool via a ghastly triple stabbing attack on running officials) and posits himself as the sole author of “the proof” that male athletes begin to perform in female ranges after ingesting a 12 month prescription of magic estrogen pills: http://tucson.com/news/local/columnists/steller/steller-transgender-cyclist-s-win-in-tucson-was-fairer-than/article_0851e258-2eb6-540a-8e60-1875e7bc836d.html
But do they?
Male “women’s champion” Jillian (Jonathan) Bearden never raced the El Tour De Tucson before but he does have a racing history. He raced the Salada Classic both as a male athlete and again later in the female division.
“The Salida Classic hosts a time trial with some of the best views in the State, a criterium in the heart of downtown Salida, and a deceivingly tough road race in the hills outside of town,” reads the event flyer: http://salidaclassic.com/home/
Bearden rode the Criterium in both 2011, as a 30 year old male competitor, and again as “Jillian”, a 36 year old male competitor in the women’s division: https://www.coloradocycling.org/results/individual?usac=506895&license=&year=all
30 year-old Jonathan Bearden: 51 minutes and 11 seconds.
36 year-old Jillian Bearden: 48 minutes and 47.9 seconds.
Bearden improved his performance after ‘gender transition’.
He isn’t alone.
Male cyclist Anna Catarina Lisk (Richard Lisk) joined Bearden by placing in the top 20 of female competitors at El Tour De Tucson. Like Bearden, he also has a racing history.
In 2007 Richard Lisk, then age 36, ran the El Tour at 5:42:57
In 2014 Richard Lisk , then age 43, ran the El Tour at 6:48:26
In 2015 as “Anna” Lisk he improved to 5:34:49.60
Last week, age 46, Lisk’s time was 5:30:33.48
This placed Richard/Anna 16th in women’s rankings and like Bearden, was an improvement in his performance after ‘gender transition’.
There were (at least) six males competing in the women’s division at El Tour De Tucson:
- Jillian Bearden (Jonathan Bearden) age 36, transition one year.
- Claire Louise Swinford age 46, (http://transangels.blogspot.com/2011/07/freaky-little-slut.html)
- Anna Catarina Lisk (Richard Lisk) age 46, transition one year.
- Erin Marie Russ (Edward Alexander Russ)
- A man calling himself “Summer Storm”
- Ruth Jennifer Seaman (Dr. Jeffrey S. Seaman- psychiatrist)
These male athletes were members of Team SAGA (Southern Arizona Gender Alliance) https://www.facebook.com/TeamSAGA2016/
representing their newish men-only cycling organization: the Trans National Women’s Cycling Team: https://www.facebook.com/TNWCT
The TNWCT is the first organized male-only team recognized by the IOC and the USAC as ‘female athletes’, according to their literature.
“We are a group of trans women cyclists of all ages, who have created a national all trans women’s USAC race team and club team. The sport of cycling has literally saved the lives of several of our members as we have struggled to achieve acceptance in our roles and in our communities. Rather than succumb to the struggles and challenges we face as transwomen, each cyclist has instead chosen a path of resilience, strength, tenacity, love, and civil stewardship. We ride for one another and for our nation as fully engaged examples of the power and beauty of being our authentic selves. The Trans National Women’s Cycling Team has created something that has never been done before—to bring all trans female cyclists together so we can share our stories and grow as a whole. Together with our members, we will continue to make ripples in the pond. This is our time, and it’s our turn to step forward and be free as our true authentic selves in the sport we love. We are giving back, leading, guiding, and pulling for all Americans. In each city we visit, our group TNWCT will not only race as a team and ride as a club, but also actively promote civility for all and encourage all to embrace their true selves in the pursuit of a deeply meaningful and fully committed life.”
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:
October 22, 2016
Not only will I be back soon THANKS TO YOU!!!!!!! ❤ ❤ ❤ XOXOX
But I will be back with an AWESOME computer FAR BETTER than what I’ve been using FOR YEARS!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m going to cut this short because I am almost crying* over this.
Thanks to you there will be an extreme upgrade in services rendered by me. #KICKASS
I’ve been working under remarkably constricting technology since my original computer was deceased two years ago. I won’t bore you. But that is ALL OVER NOW (or will be in the next few weeks as I get things sorted).
Not only will this blog reflect an increase in quality (at least technically, har har) but your generosity has provided me with potential opportunities to pursue other unrelated projects via this computer which may increase my quality of life.
To those who contributed:
I CAN’T THANK YOU ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, I don’t know what to say, except THANK YOU.
You have saved this blog, made me feel MUSHY, and opened up a world of opportunity for me via the new KICK ASS OMGGGGG! computer.
*with happiness and woo woo if that isn’t clear!
September 21, 2016
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:
September 17, 2016
Meet Julia Cushion, your new Westminster UK ‘Outreach and Engagement Officer’ for Parliament’s Department of Information. She can’t tell you what she thinks about politics, except that she thinks Lesbians and Feminists are “awful people” for wanting representation in policy that effects us. Good Luck Westminster lesbians and feminists!
Your ‘Outreach and Engagement Officer’ thinks you – and every feminist ally with concerns about over-broad “Gender Identity” statutes, the legal codification of sex stereotypes, the elimination of lesbian rights to lesbian spaces, and the medicalization of gender non-compliance in children (among other issues) are “awful people”. She wants you to know it so I’m reblogging her post here. Do make a note of it.
Link to events she describes in her post : http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-people-uk-government/#gs.hUn59Ik
*UPDATE- Gosh. Officer Cushion appears to have taken her post offline.
I find this interesting. In her post of September 2, Ms. Julia Cushion describes her new position as Outreach and Engagement Officer for Westminster. She explains that a condition of her Parliamentary service is that she must remain apolitical. See screencap here:
Yet on September 17, she writes a post describing the brilliant lesbian and Women’s Rights activists, authors, and educators who spoke at the Women’s Equality forum, including the renowned Lesbian Feminist author and professor Sheila Jeffreys, as “awful people” because Ms. Julia Cushion is against lesbian and women’s rights to representation.
Not only are lesbian and feminist politics “awful” to Ms. Cushion, but we are “awful people” entirely. See Julia Cushion’s relevant statements here:
Now, I’m not going to call Julia Cushion an “awful person” for sharing her homophobic and misogynist views. Clearly she is a completely uninformed about the issues as she admits herself. She knows nothing about transgender people, lesbians or feminism.
That someone so completely clueless might lunge clumsily and publicly in defense of a politics they’ve never deeply considered is not unique.
What I find interesting is that Ms. Cushion believes that lesbian and feminist concerns are so maligned that publicly bashing lesbians and feminists as “awful people” is a position safe to take- even for an individual whose government position is conditioned on impartiality. The hatred of lesbians and feminists expressed by Ms. Cushion- not just politically, but as people, is remarkable.
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]