A nut job San Francisco man named Daniel Davis posted video of himself creating an incident outside the women’s restroom at the Las Vegas NYNY hotel. Various media outlets are picking it up.

Dan is a man who has been taking estrogen pills for seven months after discovering his ladygender through porn consumption, strip clubs, and 4Chan. 

Contrary to his claim to the employee in the video that: “You are the only person who has this policy! Sweetheart I’ve been using the women’s room all over this city and you are the only ones in this fucking city…Dan posted 6 days ago about having security called on him in the women’s restroom at the MGM Grand.

Dan’s trail of bathroom incidents

In another post he complains that “It’s just been such a difficult struggle to be confronted in 50% of the bathrooms in this city I’ve used…“.

Mr. Davis, a heterosexual military man who calls himself “Katie”, or sometimes “Katie Charm“, posted a follow up video appealing to the fee-fees of the “entitled twits” and “bitches” which is what he calls women who are alarmed at his presence when they’re trying to change their tampons in peace.

There is absolutely no reason for sociopathic men like Dan to be permitted to go around frightening women in the women’s restrooms.

There is a restroom for males, Dan. Use it.

Yolanda Sapp, Kathleen Brisbois, Nicki Lowe.

The Donna Perry serial killer trial started on the 9th. I’ve been posting updates in the previous post thread here:

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/transgender-serial-killer-donna-perry-blames-murders-on-former-male-identity/

You may also read my original post here, where I research his criminal history (including archival materials) and offer commentary:

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/donna-perry-female-serial-killer/

After some regional coverage at the start of the trial, the last week has passed with no media coverage whatsoever (!) .

Tom Clouse of the Spokesman-Review finally posted an update last night:

“Attorneys have spent a week questioning retired police detectives, reviewing lost evidence and recounting raids that netted guns not connected to the killings of three women in 1990. But on Tuesday, prosecutors brought the fingerprint and DNA evidence that is the crux of the serial killer case against a transgender woman.

The triple murder trial of Donna R. Perry, 65, reached the point where witnesses began talking of the decades-old evidence that prompted prosecutors in 2014 to charge Perry with the killings of Yolanda A. Sapp, Nickie I. Lowe and Kathleen A. Brisbois.

The three women knew each other and lived in the same motel off of East Sprague Avenue, which has been Spokane’s traditional working zone for prostitutes.”

Read the rest of that update here:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jun/20/attorneys-reach-evidence-in-perry-trial-that-led-t/

I will be posting daily trial updates as available in the comments below for those who are following the case.

 

[credit: KHQ images]

Canada’s Bill C-16 would establish a government recognized class of people based on their personal feeling that sex stereotypes form an integral and desired component of their legal identity.

“Gender Identity” is defined under Bill C-16 as:

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from the gender typically associated with their sex assigned at birth. For some persons, their gender identity is different from the gender typically associated with their sex assigned at birth; this is often described as transgender or simply trans. Gender identity is fundamentally different from a person’s sexual orientation.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1066589

“Gender” itself is not defined by Bill C-16. Therefore “Gender Identity” is each person’s internal and individual experience of a legally undefined quality.

“Gender Identity” is legally recognized on the basis that an individual proclaims that they have the feelings of having such an identity.

“Gender Identity” would override legal recognition of, and protections based on, “Sex”.

For one example, an incarcerated male’s declaration of his internal and individual experience of “Gender Identity” overrides the Sex-based protections of Canadian female prisoners not to be confined with males. This allows Canada’s government to contravene the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners:

8.a. (a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate;

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/TreatmentOfPrisoners.aspx

Convicted male contract killer Jean-Paul “Fallon” Aubee has already applied for transfer to a women’s facility based on his internal and individual experience of an undefined quality (“Gender Identity”):

Transgender inmate hopes to make history with transfer to women’s prison
CBC News Apr 23, 2017

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-prison-policy-trudeau-1.4075500

Here is some more of the Parliamentary testimony against Bill C-16 heard at yesterday’s hearings. Follow in comments for more coverage and updates.

.

 

Madison, Wisconsin:

You can see the deranged behavior of transactivist Wendi Kent (she is the heterosexual female partner of a male who identifies as a “transwoman”) – in action here:

 

 

Gender Identity. (Artist unknown)

Gender Identity. (Artist unknown)

The Obama administration’s ‘Guidance’ had eliminated the protected legal category of ‘sex’ and replaced it with an individual’s personal identification with the sex role stereotypes culturally assigned based on sex, called ‘Gender Identity’.

Adherents of the ‘Gender Identity’ movement believe that biological sex, and therefore sex-based discrimination, does not exist and that instead, sex-role stereotypes need to be legally enforced, supported, and protected. By eliminating sex as a recognized category the Obama era “Guidance’ allowed male students to occupy formerly protected female showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms, and eliminated the rights of female students to privacy from males in those spaces.

Gavin Grimm, the high school senior whose Title IX lawsuit is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in March, described in a 2016 essay how years of sexism, bullying, and homophobia led to her adopting a belief in ‘Gender Identity’:

 

“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.

I found out about the word “transgender” when I was watching YouTube. I clicked on somebody’s video, and he looked like a girl. Then, I watched another video from, like, two years later — he was a dude! And, you know, I was 12 and thinking, Holy crap. What did he just do? I want to do it!

By the time I was 13, I started questioning things that the Christian Bible considered “sinful.” My body was betraying me more and more, the older I got. It was a horrifying experience — one that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. There’s nothing that I can think of that compares to the emotional and mental anguish. I was bullied a lot for being masculine and for being perceived as a lesbian. I was chubby and I was different. It was a cacophany of bad.

That’s when I finally revisited the idea that maybe male vs. female wasn’t all there was to it. I actually came across a scientific study showing differences in the brains of cis males and trans females — despite both being born with “male” bodies. I thought, Wow, maybe I’m not crazy.”

 

[sic]

http://www.refinery29.com/transgender-teen-aclu-bathroom-lawsuit

 

‘Gender Identity’ doctrine reframes the cultural issue of sexism and misogyny as an individual, personal, medical adjustment issue which eliminates the ability to meaningfully critique or politically address the male supremacist power structure of sex-roles themselves. ‘Gender Identity’ eliminates sex as a recognized category while codifying the roles.

Gender Identity. (image: London Science Museum)

Gender Identity. (image: London Science Museum)

The text of yesterday’s letter withdrawing the Obama administration ‘Gender Identity’ Guidance is as follows in bold:

 

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Dear Colleague:

U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

February 22, 2017

The purpose of this guidance is to inform you that the Department of Justice and the Department of Education are withdrawing the statements of policy and guidance reflected in:

  • Letter to Emily Prince from James A. Ferg-Cadima, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education dated January 7, 2015; and
  • Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students jointly issued by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Department of Education dated May 13, 2016.

These guidance documents take the position that the prohibitions on discrimination “on the basis of sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulations, see, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, require access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity. These guidance documents do not, however, contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX, nor did they undergo any formal public process.

This interpretation has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the term “sex” in the regulations is ambiguous and deferred to what the court characterized as the “novel” interpretation advanced in the guidance. By contrast, a federal district court in Texas held that the term “sex” unambiguously refers to biological sex and that, in any event, the guidance was “legislative and substantive” and thus formal rulemaking should have occurred prior to the adoption of any such policy. In August of 2016, the Texas court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the interpretation, and that nationwide injunction has not been overturned.

In addition, the Departments believe that, in this context, there must be due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.

In these circumstances, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved. The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.

Please note that this withdrawal of these guidance documents does not leave students without protections from discrimination, bullying, or harassment. All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights will continue its duty under law to hear all claims of discrimination and will explore every appropriate opportunity to protect all students and to encourage civility in our classrooms. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are committed to the application of Title IX and other federal laws to ensure such protection.

This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law. If you have questions or are interested in commenting on this letter, please contact the Department of Education at ocr@ed.gov or 800-421-3481 (TDD: 800-877-8339); or the Department of Justice at education@usdoj.gov or 877-292-3804 (TTY: 800- 514-0383).

Sincerely,

/s/ Sandra Battle

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education

/s/
T.E. Wheeler, II

Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Justice

 

 

Today’s press conference and panel from Hands Across The Aisle, a coalition of progressive and conservative women who object to the ideology of Gender Identity and the elimination of the legal status of women.