December 2, 2014
GLBT and liberal media pundits scrambled today to refute an ad sponsored by the right-wing Child Protection League group, but found themselves unable to produce a single point of contention. The paid ads were published in multiple Minnesota newspapers (Star Tribune, St. Cloud Times, Duluth News Tribune, among others) yesterday and claimed that the proposed transgender policy for student athletes will:
- Allow boys and young men to compete against girls and young women for limited slots on female sports team rosters.
- Allow boys and young men to compete “as females” on girls and young women’s sports teams based on nothing but declared “gender feelings”.
- Allow boys and young men to access girls and young women’s school showers and locker rooms previously sex-segregated to protect the privacy of girls and young women from vulnerability in areas of public nudity.
Unfortunately for transgender advocates, all of the claims in the ads are true. These are exactly the desired effects of the proposed policy. In fact, these are the outcomes the proposed policy is designed to achieve. Multiple liberal news outlets and writers are calling the right-wing ads “misleading” but not a single one has produced a statement outlining why. Because they can’t.
Media Matters calls the ads “misleading” (six times), and “false”, but fails to explain why, instead calling the ads “hurtful” (to the feelings of males), “based in ignorance” (although they don’t explain why), and “fear-based” (of what, they do not say). The total lack of rebuttal is remarkable… unless you read the policy, which actually does allow male students to do all the things the ad states.
OutFront Minnesota, the GLBT lobbying group accuses the ads of “spreading misinformation and fear” but offers no correction or rebuttal (because there isn’t one). Instead they frame the ads as “attacking transgender youth”. Presumably they mean transgender MALE youth, because forcing transgender FEMALES to compete against male-bodied persons -or to choose between their transgender identification and their participation in female sports- is the result of this policy. The policy under debate broadens rights for males only, and decreases the rights of all females, including those who identify as “transgender”.
Pink News, no rebuttal. Because there isn’t one.
The so-called “LGBT Sports Coalition”, a nebulous Nike, Inc. funded organization “composed of thirty organizations and individuals” helmed by transgender “male lesbian” and ESPN reporter Christina (Chris) Kahrl was quoted in the New York Daily News calling the ads “controversial” “hateful” “fear-mongering” and “pushing out false facts” but again failed to present a rebuttal to the accurate claims made in the ad.
You can read some of the disgustingly anti-lesbian and hideously sexist output of the Nike-funded ESPN journalist and “male lesbian” Kahrl’s group here: http://www.outsports.com/2014/11/12/7197635/tina-hillman-shot-put-iowa-state
(Quote: “athletes like Venus and Serena Williams, Brittney Greiner and Layshia Clarendon have blazed their own trails, finding success and stardom by simply expressing themselves and their creativity with every thread of clothing they wear.
Stereotype dictates that shot putters be massive, masculine athletes – something out of a Hans and Frans sketch. The women in the sport are overweight, wear short, “butch” haircuts and have sweatpants permanently attached to their hips.”)
Ugh! Homophobic and sexist! What are you thinking ESPN and Nike?!
NBC Sports writer Aaron Gleeman wrote that the ads were “misleading, bigoted” on Twitter but was unable to articulate why. I asked him myself. Several transgender activists responded that biological sex should be determined by hormone usage, but medication is not a factor, or even mentioned in the proposed juvenile athlete policy. Which I guess means that even transgenders reject this policy. And why would trans activists think it would be a good idea for kids to be pressured to take unnecessary medication as a qualification to play school sports? One transgender activist even tried to convince me that sexually dimorphic reproduction in mammals, including humans, is a myth. Oh my!
Lesbians and Feminists obviously don’t support the anti-gay and anti-woman agenda of the right wing, but we can certainly spot a sexist, lesbophobic policy designed to infringe on the rights of girls and young women when we see one. One designed to erode the rights of female student athletes, including females who “identify as transgender” (Title IX already allows female athletes to compete in male sports if they qualify, regardless of “gender feels”). This policy does nothing but restrict their right to compete.
Lesbians and Feminists and those who support us can also spot the Nike-funded ESPN-style sexism of a policy that limits participation in women’s sports by adherence to what is now apparently about to be state-sanctioned sex stereotypes.
It seems the simple solution – and one that is fair for females as well as males- is to prohibit discrimination against transgender student athletes who wish to compete in sports. That is to say, for example, that males who “identify as” transgender should not be kicked off of the football team because they have long hair or paint their nails or believe that folks have a “mental gender”. Female athletes should not be forced off female teams because they reject the female “sex role”. Not only is that a progressive, feminist view, but it allows all students to compete equally and fairly. Including the female ones.
Insurers struggle to justify the sex discrimination of legally mandated “transgender care” while surgical providers continue to decline
October 30, 2014
Less than 50 physicians worldwide are willing to provide transgender surgical “sex reassignment” or “sex change” procedures, and as the few existing practitioners retire, no one is replacing them. Modern cosmetic and reconstructive surgeons at large are opting not to do these procedures, even when they are state mandated and funded.
Now, insurers are struggling to fulfill state mandates covering transgender surgical procedures for men that are excluded for women based on sex discrimination. Transgender state medical mandates pushed by lobbyists insist that procedures such as breast implants and “face lifts” are medically necessary for men who wish to look more like women, while denying coverage for those same procedures to actual women. Transgender advocates have successfully lobbied for such government provided “care” on the grounds that without such procedures men may become depressed or abuse alcohol or other substances, and that such men have a state-protected right to avoid being mocked or socially ostracized for their appearance. Males must declare a “transgender identity” to receive coverage.
From the Boston Herald:
Four months after the state Division of Insurance put health plans on notice that denying medically necessary treatment to transgender people is prohibited sex discrimination, insurers are still grappling with what constitutes medical necessity, and patients are struggling to find doctors who’ll treat them.
“We were concerned people were having to go all over the country for this surgery,” Dr. Joel Rubenstein of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care said yesterday at a Division of Insurance informational session. “We’re hopeful somebody would step up to put together the surgical piece so it could all be in one place.”
On the other hand, he said, Harvard Pilgrim does not want to approve procedures such as facial feminization for transgender people if those procedures would be considered merely cosmetic for other people.
But Ruben Hopwood of Fenway Health said facial feminization is not about wanting a “cuter nose.” A transgender person’s appearance is more likely to be the difference between getting a job or not getting one, and walking down the street unafraid or being attacked, Hopwood said.
Getting the proper treatment also can save money that might otherwise be spent on treatment for alcohol or substance abuse or depression, said Pam Klein, a nurse at Boston Health Care for the Homeless.
[bolding by me-GM]
September 8, 2014
In the UK, Children as young as three years of age are now being admitted to state medical clinics for “corrective treatment” of sex-role noncompliance, with the aim of upholding social norms of gender and to prevent the development of “visibly transgendered” adults. Such treatments involve administration of drugs which halt normal child development (“Puberty Blockers”) followed by the lifetime administration of cross-sex hormones, resulting in sterilization. In the US, the first federally-funded state eugenics program in over thirty years will be launched in Oregon on October 1, 2014, specifically targeting pre-pubertal children deemed by parents and providers to be “transgender”. Surgeons now routinely perform complete “Sexual Reassignment Surgeries”: removing the genitals and reproductive systems of children as young as sixteen.
The following are excerpts from an interview featured in this month’s issue of LGBT Health Journal, discussing the “Current Practice and Future Possibilities” of sterilized transgender children:
“Dr. Eyler: So there are treatments for trans adults who want to become parents. Would the two of you like to discuss the needs of transgender youth, particularly children who may not complete pubertal development in the natal sex, and possibilities for future fertility for them?
Dr. Pang: My experience has been only with postpubertal individuals. The youngest transgender person whom I have treated was 22 years old, so I do not have any experience with children who are either early postpubertal or prepubertal. I think that more transgender young people are becoming interested in potentially being parents. Last year, I was contacted by the mother of a transgender teenager, a 15-year-old transgender son. Her son is interested in fertility preservation; they had questions so I explained to them what it would involve. The technologies that I have to offer are useful only for postpubertal youth, such as someone his age, but I am sure that you, Anderson, might have ideas about how to help prepubertal children.
Dr. Clark: In the trans community, more and more trans youth are being treated at younger ages, such as at Dr. Norman Spack’s clinic at Children’s Hospital in Boston. Some gender variant children are treated with puberty suspending medications, GnRH analogs, similar to the treatment of children who are experiencing precocious puberty. This keeps them from going through the full puberty of the birth sex, spares them from developing secondary sex characteristics that are misaligned with their psychological gender, and gives them some time to mature.
Dr. Eyler: Cognitively and emotionally.
Dr. Clark: Yes, to be able to decide, when they get older, whether they want to medically transition. Some gender variant children are not actually transsexual or transgender as such, and will eventually decide to stop treatment and experience the puberty of the birth sex. Others, with the support of their parents and clinical team, find that they need cross-sex hormone treatments to proceed with the puberty that is aligned with their gender.
The Endocrine Society Guidelines1 support puberty-suppressing treatment beginning as early as Tanner (sexual maturity rating) stage 2, so this can precede significant hormonal and sexual development. Some adolescents, therefore, don’t develop the ability to produce viable gametes (eggs and sperm). Adolescent trans girls may lose fertility from estrogen treatment, even if they developed the ability to produce sperm before this was started. When they reach the age of majority, trans youth may also proceed with gender-affirming surgery that includes removal of the gonads.
For children and young adolescents, it is often the parents who are thinking about future reproductive capacity, because they would like the possibility of grandchildren, and because they are looking after the future interests of their children. When I speak at community conferences, they often come to ask about reproductive options for their children.
Dr. Eyler: Yes, and as a biologist, you are prepared to discuss the significance of the gametes not maturing and what future reproduction might involve.
Dr. Clark: Yes. The most applicable research has been performed on behalf of children who are treated for cancer and are rendered infertile. The Society for the Preservation of Fertility focuses on the needs of both postpubertal and prepubertal youth who may experience sterility from cancer treatments.
July 15, 2014
Originally posted on Privilege Denying Tranny:
In what world can a politician graphically describe a journalist being the crusty “smegma” inside of a m2t’s neo-vag, actively campaign to get said journalist ‘no platformed’ at speaking engagements, publicly state that he thinks men should flout the laws of the country he’s sworn to up hold as a politician in order to procure black market estrogen and not get called out for it? Well a S.C.A.M. of course!
Enter in the sucking black hole that is Sarah Brown. After a crushing defeat by the labor party in the UK’s recent election cycle, Brown has found himself out of a job. And what do men do when they loose? Lash out at anyone and everyone possible, while simultaneously building a case why they’re not responsible for their own actions.
“Aunty” Sarah has been constructing an argument that “Terfs” have been “hounding him” to have a nervous breakdown over the…
View original 922 more words
Denver State Women’s Wellness Center now to offer cervical cancer screenings to men who feel like they are female
April 3, 2014
“DENVER — A state-run women’s wellness program now provides breast and cervical cancer screenings for transgender women, announced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wednesday.”
Since sexism no longer matters, plaintiffs try using “gender identity” to win relief from sexist injury
August 12, 2013
“I lean more towards the feminine spectrum, but I do ovulate between masculine and feminine. It just depends on the day, girl!” – B. Scott, explaining his gender suit.
There was a time when lawyers filed actions against individuals and organizations that discriminated against their clients based on sex. Some of these cases involved damages caused by institutions or officials who illegally discriminated via enforcement of sexist stereotypes. These cases were usually brought on behalf of women. Examples include women who were not promoted due to their failure to exhibit ritualized behaviors of submission not required of their male coworkers , women who were required to don sexualized uniforms and maintain specific, expensive (unpaid) time-consuming body grooming and face-painting regimes as a condition of workplace readiness not required of male co-workers.
These lawsuits were filed on the grounds that sex-stereotyping is discriminatory against women, and when institutionally or officially enforced, illegal.
The current age of profound political backlash against the rights of women has resulted in a reinvigoration of state, official and institutional codification of sexual stereotypes (“gender”) as a legally protected form of discrimination now framed as a personal belief or “faith”. As such, sex discrimination has been re-classified as a state-protected institutional and personal “value”.
The new form of sex-based discrimination has elevated the sex-stereotype to a protected legal category that eclipses sex itself. Claims of sex discrimination are now opposed by the new protected “right to believe in” sex discrimination. This new protected form of sex stereotyping is called “gender” or “gender identity”. The legal creation of “Gender Identity” is identical to the old form of discriminatory sex stereotyping except that it now protects and codifies the “right to stereotype” while providing limited recourse against sex discrimination to individuals that publicly, formally pledge belief in sex stereotypes. Examples include statutes which allow males to displace females in state education Title IX sports programs on the basis that the males believe themselves to possess thoughts, feelings, and behaviors sex-stereotyped as female.
What then will become of those claims formerly filed under now eliminated sex discrimination protections? Two recent actions provide us with a clue.
Fashion pundit and femme gay male internet personality B.Scott filed a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit against Viacom and the BET cable network last week after an incident which took place during his July appearance on the pre-show for the BET Awards. Scott claims he was pulled off the air and told his clothing did not adhere to the company’s sex-based dress policy. He states that he was forced to change outfits to one that BET producers deemed appropriate for males based on sex-stereotypes. These actions resulted in alleged damage to Scott’s reputation due to an interruption of his performance, wrongful termination, loss of income, and emotional distress due to the unlawful infliction of discriminatory wardrobe policies based on sex. However since sex-stereotyping is now a protected legal category Scott’s attorney recommended filing suit on the basis of “Gender Identity” discrimination. One problem: Scott has no record of ever making public pledge or testimony of a personal transgender belief or “identity”. On the contrary, Scott has always maintained a strong pride in himself as a flaming gay man. As part of his lawsuit, Scott was forced to make a public statement adopting a personal “gender identity” and proclaiming himself to be transgender.
“Over the years my love muffins and strangers alike have questioned me about my gender identity. What IS B. Scott? As a society we’ve been conditioned to believe that a person has to be ‘exactly’ this or ‘exactly’ that. Biologically, I am male — as my sex was determined at birth by my reproductive organs.
However, my spirit truly lies somewhere in between. It is that same spirit that has allowed me to become so comfortable in my skin, choose how I express myself, and contributes to how I live my day-to-day life.
Transgender is the state of one’s gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one’s assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). [source]
It is by that definition that I accept and welcome the ‘transgender’ label with open arms.
It is also by that definition that BET and Viacom willingly and wrongfully discriminated against my gender identity during the 2013 BET Awards Pre-Show.”
B.Scott’s announcement did not sit well with many in the transgender community who disputed the authenticity of his newly declared protected gender beliefs. Longtime trans activist and Transgriot blogger Monica “Fishy” Roberts (who believes he is female and refers to his penis as a “six inch neo-clitoris”) tweeted “When B Scott starts taking hormones and calling himself Brittany (or another femme name starting with ‘B’) and declares he’s transitioning then I’ll consider him part of Team Trans.”
Roberts and others rightfully observe that Scott’s sudden public testimonial of his newly adopted Gender Identity beliefs appears insincere and mercenary. However unlike an individual who suddenly proclaims Judaism to access a protected legal right to compel an employer to give them the day off for Passover, the protected legal category of Gender Identity requires no evidence of authenticity. Duration of belief, performance of rituals, membership in a faith affinity group are objective criteria used to parse self-declared legally protected personal belief identities. Gender Identity requires no such objective criteria. Anyone can claim it at any time, even retroactively, purely on the basis of personal report of one’s feelings. Gender Identity offers legal protection to anyone who is willing to declare at any time that they:
– possess intellectual, psychological or behavioral characteristics which fail to conform to social stereotypes based on reproductive sex,
-believe such non-reproductive traits are inextricably caused by reproductive biology,
-draw the conclusion that reproductive biology itself is therefore not objectively observable.
This new protective legal status for “sex-deniers” has undermined, if not removed, the grounds for claims based on sex discrimination, or at least provided cover for the lack of political will to enforce anti-discrimination claims of women, who are overwhelmingly the victims of such sex discrimination. It is little wonder that femme gay man Scott decided not to pursue remedy via sex-discrimination suit although that is obviously what he was a victim of if his account of events is factual.
Instead of asserting his right to dress as he wished regardless of sex, Scott’s representatives found it more advantageous in this legal environment to argue that Scott’s right to wardrobe hinged on his self-concept of himself as reproductively (partially) female.
In Quebec last month, management consultant and butch lesbian Tommi Sojourner filed a Judicial complaint on the grounds of “Gender Identity” after an incident of apparent sex-based harassment that occurred in a bizarre courtroom exchange with a judge who insisted on referring to the claimant as male over and over and over again, even after correction by Sojourner and opposing counsel over a dozen times. Sojourner, who does not perform femininity, expressed that being repeatedly referred to as male – after multiple corrections- based on her failure to conform to female sex-stereotypes was insulting, sexist, and deliberately harassing. Further, she alleges that her case was not given an objective hearing due to judicial bias based on her sex-role nonconformity. This is sex discrimination. It is discriminatory for a judicial official to insist that a woman is actually a male due to the fact that she fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of dress and behavior and it is harassment to continue to do so after being corrected more than a dozen times.
Sojourner’s claim rests on the fact that she is not transgendered. If she was a genderist she would have been well pleased by the judge’s repeated cross-sex identification of her, based on sex-stereotypical norms. Regardless, in the post-sex legal landscape where “sex-denial” is itself a protected category, her attorney thought it expeditious to utilize a Gender Identity claim vs. a sex discrimination case. By this erasure Sojourner was not discriminated against as a woman based on sex, or as a lesbian, but on the dis-acknowledgement of her own personal free-floating self-concept of herself as (like Scott) inhabiting “femaleness“.
If sex does not exist, sex discrimination does not exist. Class-action litigation based on sex does not exist.
With the elimination of the legal category of sex and the removal of sex-stereotyping as an actionable wrong, litigants have no choice but to seek protection under “Gender Identity” on the basis that formerly discriminatory (now protected) sex-stereotypes are being incorrectly applied to them based on personal testimony of their self-reported, objectively unobservable, sex reproductive “self-concept”.
This is legal political feminist backlash circa 2013.