Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

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).

Houston Press headline

Houston Press headline

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.

Gay Blogger Joe Jervis responds to woman who received rape threat from HERO supporter

Gay Blogger Joe Jervis on the woman who received alleged rape threat from HERO supporter

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”.

mara keisling HERO

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.



bigben Written evidence submitted by Sheila Jeffreys to the Transgender Equality Inquiry

Professor of Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne (currently on leave in London).


I am the author of a number of influential books, book chapters and scholarly articles on transgenderism including the 2014 book Gender Hurts: a feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism (Routledge). Gender Hurts has been featured on Woman’s Hour in the UK and in The New Yorker, The Nation, Village Voice, and numerous other media outlets. See also my article ‘The Politics of the Toilet: a feminist analysis of the ‘degendering’ of a women’s space’ (2014)

Transgender equality versus women’s equality: a clash of rights?


The submission argues that any discussion of transgender equality should consider the ways in which such equality might violate women’s equality rights.

The submission argues that men who transgender should be not be treated in law and policy as if they are women if such treatment enables them to gain access to spaces set aside to ensure women’s dignity, security and right to organise as a specific rights bearing group, such as women’s refuges, women’s toilets, women’s prisons, women only political groups and activities.

The submission requests that ensuring women’s equality rights in relation to women’s spaces should inform the committee’s deliberations and that a policy guideline aimed at protecting such spaces should be drawn up.

1. Transgender equality rights:

This submission supports legislation and policy that seeks to prevent discrimination against persons who transgender. All persons should have rights of employment and access to services irrespective of how they choose to dress or present themselves in public. It supports the rights of those in a category called ‘transgender’ to protection from discrimination in the exercise of their proclivities. Gender is not the same as sex. Women require protection as a sex, as it is on the basis of and through their sex that women are discriminated against and suffer disadvantage. Women do not occupy low status on the basis of their ‘gender’, i.e. aspects of appearance and behaviour, but on the basis of sex. The protection of a category of men to express their ‘gender’ should not conflict with women’s right to protection from discrimination as persons of the female sex.

2. Omission of women’s interests in this inquiry:

Despite the fact that this committee’s name specifically references women, women’s equality rights are not included in the terms of reference for this inquiry. The inquiry does not refer to the effect that ‘equality’ for men who transgender might have upon women’s equality. Women’s and feminist groups are generally not invited to contribute to consultations on transgender rights as if they would have nothing relevant to say, despite the fact that men may, under the idea of transgender equality 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. In this submission I have taken the liberty of writing from the point of view of the category of persons, women, whose interests are usually omitted from consideration in relation to this issue.

3. Clash of rights:

i. The demand for transgender equality may create a ‘clash of rights’ in which the rights demanded by one group of people can substantially endanger the rights of another group (Sniderman, Fletcher, Russell and Tetlock, 1997). In a clash of rights some adjudication has to be made as to whether the group involved in the rights demand that compromises the rights of another group, can be accommodated in human rights norms.

ii. In the case of the campaign for transgender equality the main category of persons seeking rights are persons of the male sex, that is, those responsible for the violation of women’s rights to, for example, live free from violence and the threat of death, to freedom of movement and expression, to freedom from discrimination (Romito, 2008). These male persons do not generally just claim that they are disadvantaged in their own right as members of the category ‘transgender’, but that they actually are physically members of the female sex, women, as in the demand by male bodied transgenders that they should be able to enter spaces such as toilets, set aside for women. A most serious clash of rights is likely to occur when members of one rights-bearing category claim to actually be members of another category.

iii. A clash of rights occurs also when members of one rights-bearing category, persons who transgender, promote ideas and practices which are recognised in international law as harmful to the equality of another group. Persons who transgender do not change their biological sex but follow the norms in outward appearance that are called in human rights terms ‘gender stereotypes’. The promotion within the politics of transgenderism of the idea that an essential ‘gender’ exists and that the appropriate ‘gender’ for persons of the female sex is represented in particular forms of clothing and mannerisms creates a clash with the rights of women. In international law gender stereotypes are recognised as being in contradiction to the interests of women. The importance attributed to the elimination of these stereotypes is exemplified in the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which feminists advocated for throughout the 1970s until its promulgation in 1979. Article 5 of CEDAW calls upon States Parties, to ‘take all appropriate measures’ to ‘modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudice and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (United Nations, 1979: Article 5). ‘Stereotyped roles’ are, according to feminist critics of the practice, the very foundation and sine qua non of transgenderism, and the notion of ‘gender identity’ (see Jeffreys, 2014). The promotion of such stereotypes by men who transgender is harmful to women’s equality and this could be seen as a reason why ‘transgender equality’ inevitably conflicts with women’s rights.

4. Why men who transgender should not have access to women’s spaces:

i. Men who transgender should not have access to women’s spaces because they do not change their biological sex and do not become female. Moreover, the majority of these male-bodied persons (85%) retain their genitalia (Transgender Law Centre, 2005). There is no requirement in UK legislation such as the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, that recognition as transgender must involve hormonal or surgical treatment. Thus male persons who access women’s spaces may be physically entire and express their gender identity only through the assumption of feminine stereotypes, i.e. gender, in their appearance.

ii. The behaviour of men who transgender towards women resembles the behaviour of men who do not transgender in respect of male pattern violence i.e. some male-bodied transgenders, like their non-transgendering counterparts, have a pattern of violent practices towards women such as murder, rape, sexual harassment. The linked website provides a collection of newspaper accounts of sexual violence against women and girls by men who transgender: The response from transgender rights campaigners is sometimes that the men who are violent are not genuine transgenders, but since transgenderism is not a biological condition but a mental one, adjudication of genuineness is not possible. Increasing numbers of those who have transgendered are deciding that they have made a mistake and engaging in ‘detransition’, which reveals that the mental condition can be temporary and evanescent. A google search reveals 19,600 pages of resources for persons who seek to detransition.

5. Women’s spaces:

Three varieties of spaces deliberately segregated to protect women’s dignity and security will be considered here: women’s refuges, women’s toilets and women’s prisons.

i. Women’s refuges: Women’s refuges were established to create a place of refuge for women who have suffered violence from men. From their inception the majority of refuges have sought to offer women spaces where they are not forced to interact with men in order to enable them to recover from the trauma they have suffered. Unfortunately, as a result of the campaign for transgender equality, refuge provision for women is increasingly being opened up to men who ‘identify’ as women through the adoption of stereotyped feminine accoutrements. Some of these men have histories of violence against women and media reports of court cases involved rape by such persons is starting to emerge. In a Canadian case a man called Christopher Hambrook was found guilty of sexually assaulting ‘four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years’ in two shelters for homeless women and women escaping domestic violence (Pazzano, 2014). He accessed the shelters by claiming to identify as a woman called ‘Jessica’. Clear dangers arise when women residents are forced to share bathrooms and bedrooms with violent men who profess to have gender identities.

ii. Women’s toilets: Women’s toilets constitute spaces in which women are particularly vulnerable and for this reason, to protect women’s dignity and safety, they have tended to be segregated ever since women’s rights campaigners in the nineteenth century demanded such provision. As a result of campaigns for transgender equality, men who crossdress and transgender are increasingly gaining the right to access women’s toilets. There are a quite surprising number of cases in which men wearing women’s clothing have been arrested for engaging in behaviour in women’s toilets that harms women. This webpage provides information and links to numerous occasions on which men dressed in stereotyped women’s clothing have engaged in sexual violence in women’s bathrooms/toilets: l The range of acts they engage in includes secret photographing of women using the toilets and showers, making audio recordings of women urinating or defecating, peeping at women from adjacent stalls or under stall dividers, demanding that women recognise them as women and becoming aggressive if women do not, luring children into women’s toilets in order to assault them, and sexual assault. In a British case, a man dressed up as a ‘mannequin with a mask and a wig’ to enter a cubicle in the women’s toilets in a shopping mall, where he ‘performed’ an unspecified ‘sexual act’ (Ninemsn staff, 2011). The 22 year old man told police he ‘found the sound of women on the toilet sexually exciting’. The man had filmed women’s feet from beneath cubicle doors on his mobile phone, and recorded the sound of a flushing toilet.

iii. Women’s prisons: Women’s prisons are spaces in which women are confined and unable to escape unwanted attention from males. The fact that women may have to share cells and shower facilities with men who are seeking to transgender could be seen as an extra layer of punishment. Male prisoners in western countries are using human rights laws successfully to gain access to transgender treatment at public expense in prison, and the right to then transfer to the women’s estate. These men are often precisely those who are most violent and dangerous to women’s safety, having been convicted of grave crimes including the murder of women. In 2009, an appeal from an unnamed, violent male prisoner in the UK to be moved to a women’s prison was successful. The petitioner in this case was found guilty in 2001 of the manslaughter of his male lover who was strangled with a pair of tights, allegedly for refusing to fund the murderer’s sex change surgery. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Five days after his release he attempted to rape a female stranger and was sent back to prison (Allen, 2009). The man’s lawyer told the court that the crimes were all linked to ‘a desperation to become a woman’. The judge declared that ‘her (sic) continued detention in a male prison is in breach of her rights under Article 8 [the right to private and family life] under the European Convention on Human Rights’. The notion of human rights is trivialised thereby. In response to the judgement, new guidelines were issued for the treatment of prisoners seeking gender reassignment in UK prisons in March 2011, which enabled prisoners to have treatment and to be located in women’s prisons. Unfortunately, there seems to be no acknowledgement here of the more serious and pressing right of women to avoid being compulsorily housed with violent men.


Persons of one biological sex who consider that they have a ‘gender identity’ stereotypically associated with the other sex do suffer discrimination and need protection. A problem arises, however, when ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are confused, to the extent that male-bodied persons gain a right to enter spaces set aside for women. In such a case a clash of rights is created. Persons who wish to express a gender identity not usually stereotypically associated with their biological sex need to be accommodated in ways that protect them, but do not conflict with the rights of women.


That the protection of women’s rights to dignity and security and to separate women’s spaces should be an underlying principle guiding the deliberations and recommendations of this committee. That the committee should establish a guideline that ensures such protection.


Allen, Vanessa (2009, 5 September). Transsexual killer and attempted rapist wins ‘human rights’ battle to be moved to women’s prison. London: The Daily Mail.

Jeffreys, Sheila (2005). Beauty and Misogyny: harmful cultural practices in the west. London: Routledge. Jeffreys, Sheila (2014). Gender Hurts: a feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism. London: Routledge.

Ninemsn Staff (2011, 18 April). Man dressed as mannequin found in mall toilet. Australia: Nine News.

Pazzano, Sam (2014, 15 February). A sex predator’s sick deception. Toronto Sun.

Romito, Patrizia (2008). A Deafening Silence. Hidden Violence against Women and Children. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Transgender Law Centre (2005). Peeing in Peace: a Resource Guide for Transgender Activists and Allies. San Francisco Transgender Law Centre. 20 August 2015




YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap county in Washington State has rolled back their transgender open locker room policy, which had allowed access to opposite sex locker rooms, showers, and restrooms to members who had proclaimed a belief that they are “mentally” the opposite sex. The changes came about after a mother and YMCA volunteer went to the press and exposed the risks to children, and potential liability for the non-profit, that the former policy created.


“Following complaints from the public, Bob Ecklund, President and CEO of the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap county, issued a statement Oct. 5 saying the organization is modifying the policy for transgender individuals in locker rooms and restrooms in “family facilities.” Ecklund said the change was to ensure youth are not exposed to the opposite sex in their locker room.

Ecklund said the new policy states that “transgender members in transition will use private locker rooms for dressing and showering. Transgender members may use standalone restrooms that align with their gender identification. The change applies to: Gordon Family YMCA, Mel Korum Family YMCA, Lakewood Family YMCA, Morgan Family YMCA, Tom Taylor Family YMCA, Bremerton Family YMCA, Haselwood Family YMCA.

For locker rooms at “adult facilities,” transgender members may use locker rooms and restrooms that align with their gender identification. That applies to Tacoma Center YMCA and University Y Student Center.

“We understand transgender individuals who are in transition often face a dilemma on where to change and shower, and the Y strives to be a place to be safe and inclusive of everyone in our care,” Ecklund wrote.

“I want to emphasize this narrow revision of the policy is focused on dressing and showering spaces only, as they are the most sensitive spaces in our facility, especially as it relates to children.”

Ecklund noted that as a nonprofit in Washington State, YMCAs are both “employers” and “places of public accommodation,” and that they are required to comply with all laws regulating employers and places of public accommodations.

“Washington State recognizes transgender rights and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which includes gender identity,” Ecklund wrote. “We believe we are both following the law and accommodating our diverse groups of members. We also note this is an evolving area of the law, and we will continue to stay tuned to updates from Washington State.”

Read the whole story, which is very interesting and well-reported by journalist Eric Mandel here:


prison bars

Testimony admitted by the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry in the UK Parliament took a surprise turn when members sounded the alarm over what they warned is an “ever increasing tide” of transwoman criminal sex offenders. They outline how sex-offending transwomen whom they describe as “pretend transsexuals” adopt a transgender identity for various nefarious purposes, often involving increased access to vulnerable women and child victims.

Description of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, from the August 20, 2015 testimony to Parliament [PDF] [all bolding in this post by me-GM]:

The Association numbers over a hundred members and comprises the overwhelming majority of all clinicians working in every Gender Identity Clinic in the British Isles. The membership is drawn from all the involved disciplines and includes Speech Therapists, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Surgeons, Psychosexual Counsellors, Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Endocrinologists, General Practitioners and Social Workers.

From the testimony:

The criminal justice system merits quite a bit of thinking about.

On the one hand, many of us can remember patients who were charged with crimes, convicted and who ended up on the sex offenders register when we thought that the same thing wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t a trans person. A good example would be the transwoman charged with sexual assault after some brief fellatio with two males who were two and three years younger than her own age at the time (she was eighteen). They were visitors to the area and boasted to their cousin of their recent sexual encounter. The cousin, enlightening them as to the nature of the person they had had a sexual encounter with, caused them to feel embarrassed. One thing led to another and the patient was charged with sexual assault. Given that she was in a kneeling position at the time and that it would have been perfectly possible for either one of the males concerned to run away this seemed a bit implausible. In the end, she was convicted of being reckless as regard to age. This does place her on the sex offenders register, though. One suspects that she would never have been charged at all if she had been a born female.

The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard. I am sure that the Governor concerned would be happy to talk about this.


To recap the points made in that second paragraph:

There is an “ever increasing tide” of incarcerated transwomen accessing transgender care services.

These transwomen are overwhelmingly convicted of “serious sexual offenses”, facing “long or indeterminate” sentences.

These transwomen convicted of serious sexual offences “vastly outnumber” transgender prisoners convicted for ordinary crimes.

Transgender care providers have identified several “improper purposes” utilized by the vast majority of incarcerated transwomen seeking transgender care.

These are identified as follows:

  1. Access to trips out of prison
  2. Sexual access to vulnerable incarcerated females
  3. Early parole due to parole board’s false belief that transwomen are less dangerous than other men.
  4. False belief that transgender medical treatments will decrease their future impulses to commit criminal sexual offenses.
  5. Desire for special status within prison system.
  6. Desire for protected status within prison system.
  7. Enhanced ability to commit future serious sexual offenses against women and/or children while disguised as women.

The Parliamentary testimony of the Association of Gender Identity Specialists goes on to complain that “Informed Consent” models of transgender care, where adopted, force clinicians to knowingly facilitate criminal sex offenses against women and children through the administration of transgender medicine.

That testimony:

There has been much talk recently of an “informed consent” approach being adopted.

The difficulty is that this phrase is much used in medical practice at the same two word phrase holds a wholly different meaning in the context being suggested. In routine medical practice in this and other countries the phrase “informed consent” means that patients can only be felt to have consented to any medical procedure if they have been fully informed, and understood, the likely consequences, both positive and negative, of the treatment being suggested, advised of alternative treatments that might be available, (including no treatment at all) and the likely positive and negative consequences of those alternatives. It is assumed in advance that the treatment suggestion is that being advanced by the practitioner concerned, the question being whether the patient is consenting to that treatment in a fully informed way.

The same phrase — “informed consent” — seems to the Association to have been borrowed by those suggesting very radical and negative shift in medical practice. It is suggested that provided patients are of sound mind (this amounts to the exclusion of serious mental illness) and understand the nature and consequences of what they request it should, essentially, be the role of the practitioner to fulfil that request. Crucially, there seems to be no recognition or acknowledgement of the view of the practitioner concerned about the merit of the suggested procedure. If actually implemented, this arrangement would leave medical practitioners in the position of having to make diagnoses they do not believe in, prescribe drugs they personally believe will not benefit the patient and undertake surgical procedures that they themselves believe will confer no benefit or cause harm. This is incompatible with medical practice, the first tenet of which is that one should “first, do no harm”.

In practical application, the worrying prisoner described in the paragraph above would be in a position to oblige medical practitioners to advance a plan the basis of which is the facilitation of subsequent sexual assault.


Read the full testimony at the above PDF link.


No Gender Identity protections for female transgender Connor MacCallister

No Gender Identity protections for female transgender Connor MacCalister

A hunger strike was started by ten transgender activists calling themselves “No Pride In Prison” demanding that a male convicted of a violent crime in New Zealand who says he “identifies as female” be transferred to housing among confined females. The man, Jade Follett, was convicted for stabbing another man in the back three times as the victim tried to run away. The two had met via social networking for a sexual encounter. Follett was offered home detention and anger management training for his 21 month sentence but declined it, opting instead for voluntary incarceration.

Hunger strike until death to affirm Gender Identity rights of Jade Follett

Hunger strike until death to affirm Gender Identity rights of male Jade Follett

Calls were issued for volunteers who would sit with and administer juices and teas to the “Transwomen” who pledged to die of starvation so the voluntarily confined individual could achieve his goal of placement among women confined involuntarily by the state. This action was informed by New Zealand’s adoption of “Gender identity” laws that eliminate the basic human rights of women prisoners to be confined separate from males in favor of the self-reported “gender feelings” of any male who claims they have female brains in their male bodies.

No hunger protest took place to demand Conner MacCalister be placed in male prison in accordance with her long term identity as a man. No transgender activists have protested her “misgendering” as female after a decade of testosterone medical treatment. No transgender legal advocacy organizations have demanded her identity as a man be respected in her prison placement. Her gender identity rights have not been affirmed by transgender advocates. No hunger strike has been announced for the identity rights of Conner MacCalister to be affirmed by placement in the male facility she identifies with. This is because Gender Identity rights apply solely to males. No female benefits from “Gender Identity” rights, ever, including females who identify as male and are “post-transition”.

* The hunger strike for the male inmate was halted after 5 hours when prison authorities agreed to house the violent male inmate among the state confined female population in deference to his belief that he is female-brained. Reports say dinner was early for the hunger strikers, but celebratory.

Gavin Grimm

Gavin Grimm

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Doumar rejected the Obama administration’s attempts to eliminate Title IX sex-based protections for women and girls and replace them with social stereotypes based on sex. The ruling came in the case of Gavin Grimm, a sixteen year old girl who believes that people have inborn mental characteristics based on sex, and that she has the personality of a sperm-producing individual. Individuals with this belief system call themselves “Transgender” and consider what they believe to be a mis-match between personality and reproductive biology to be a psychiatric condition.

Grimm believes her personality is one of a biological male, and that therefore she is a male with a female body. She would like to express this belief by using the urinals along with the males in the public restrooms at her school. Transgender adherents also believe that individuals who have personality traits “innate” to the opposite sex should be made to use facilities of the opposite sex that are normally sex-segregated for the protection and privacy of women (locker rooms, sports teams, sleeping quarters, showers, hospital bed assignments, etc.)

The Obama administration also believes in the concept of mental sex, and has attempted to bypass the legislature and judiciary by pushing guidelines through their Department of Education, OSHA, Department of Labor, EEOC, and Justice Department removing sex-based protections for women and girls under Title IX and replacing them with protections for “mental sex”, or “reproductive personality”, or “gender identity”.

The ACLU, with the backing of Obama’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Gavin Grimm’s school district, claiming that Title IX sex-based protections should be overridden by the concept of sex-based personality. Specifically they assert that students whose personality does not “match” their reproductive status should use areas of public nudity along with those of the opposite sex. Grimm’s school district sought to accommodate her sex-stereotype beliefs by offering her use of private unisex facilities in several locations throughout the school, but she claims segregating any facilities based on sex discriminates against her self-concept and belief that her brain is reproductively male.

This is at least the second federal ruling that rejects Obama administration attempts to strip Title IX protections from women and girls in order to establish federal guidelines on sex-based personality characteristics.

Here Gavin explains why she believes she is a sperm producing male individual, rather than an egg producing female individual:

“When I was little, I didn’t think of myself as a boy or a girl. I thought of myself as a kid who did what I wanted. When I started school, though, that gender divide became more apparent. I noticed that boys didn’t want to play with me. I had a best friend in elementary school, and one day he just said, “Hey, we can’t hang out any more.” When I asked why, he said, “’Cause you’re a girl.” I was indignant. “What are you talking about?” I asked. “What does that even mean?”

I never, ever, in a million years envisioned myself growing up to be a woman. I don’t think I thought of any alternatives, but I knew for sure that I was not going to grow up and be a woman. When puberty hit, my biggest struggle was not only feeling betrayed by my body, but also the increasing pressure to become a little lady.

It was around this age that my leg hair started growing in — and I did not want to shave it. I loved having leg hair; I thought it was cool! But, my classmates didn’t agree. My mother, of course, put a lot of pressure on me — because I was “blossoming into a young woman” and all that — to conform to feminine archetypes. That caused a lot of conflict in my family relationships. I was a very volatile, angry kid in that time period.

But, I didn’t give up; I just continued refusing to shave or wear dresses. I gravitated towards boys’ clothes. It started slowly: Oh, here’s one Pokémon shirt because I love Pokémon. Soon, I was only shopping in the boys’ section. My mother (and I want to make it very clear that she has come a very, very long way) is Christian. She had a lot of problems with homosexuality, and she perceived me to be a homosexual female because I was very masculine in how I acted and dressed. At one point, she came to me and said, “You’re so angry, and I know why.” I said, “Wait, you do?” And, she said, “You’re a lesbian.”

I was about 11 or 12 at the time. And, I knew I liked girls, but I’d never, ever, ever identified with the term “lesbian” — calling yourself a lesbian means asserting yourself as a woman, and I didn’t want to do that. I wanted to live in that gray area where I didn’t have to say that I was anything. So, the conflict started again. Apparently, being a lesbian doesn’t excuse you from shaving your legs.”

Transgender Flag: Blue is for boys, Pink is for girls

Transgender Flag: Blue is for boys, Pink is for girls

“My rights are being dismissed for his rights”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 864 other followers