August 28, 2015
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.
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.
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.”
May 1, 2015
“My rights are being dismissed for his rights”
GenderTrender received notification yesterday from WordPress.com that Cathy Brennan has filed a legal copyright claim of ownership for the now-archived website RadFem Hub.
Specifically, Ms. Brennan demanded that GenderTrender cease and desist in displaying the above screenshot of the RadFem Hub website header on the grounds that Brennan is the sole and legal owner of said intellectual property.
Cathy Brennan played no part in the creation of the RadFem Hub project, nor participated in the creation of its header or graphics design. She was reportedly brought on board just prior to the demise of the site, under verbal agreement that she would maintain the $50. a year URL costs in perpetuity, an agreement that was apparently reneged on in the space of one year. It is believed that Brennan produced no original content related to the site.
Brennan filed six other simultaneous copyright claims against this website for seemingly random materials published on GenderTrender.
All of her claims have (thankfully) been rejected as without merit by WordPress.com. One might speculate that such claims represent harassment, censorship, and abuse by a wealthy financial services legal partner against a low income working class lesbian feminist blogger, possibly due to ongoing political disagreements.
December 17, 2014
“A divided federal appeals court in Boston on Tuesday overturned a lower court’s ruling that a transgender Massachusetts prison inmate, convicted of committing a domestic murder, was entitled to taxpayer-funded sex change surgery.
The ruling by the First US Circuit Court of Appeals came after a 2012 ruling by US District Judge Mark Wolf, who ordered the surgery after finding that the state’s failure to provide it violated the inmate’s Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
In January, a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld Wolf’s 2012 decision, but the state of Massachusetts then asked for an en banc, or full bench, review, which led to Tuesday’s ruling.
The ruling came in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born Robert Kosilek. Kosilek is serving a life sentence for killing her wife, Cheryl Kosilek, in 1990.
The court ruled 3-2, with Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson and William J. Kayatta Jr. filing separate dissenting opinions..
“We are faced with the question whether the [state Department of Correction’s] choice of a particular medical treatment is constitutionally inadequate,” the court said in the majority opinion.
“After carefully considering the community standard of medical care, the adequacy of the provided treatment, and the valid security concerns articulated by the DOC, we conclude that the district court erred and that the care provided to Kosilek by the DOC does not violate the Eighth Amendment,” said the opinion, which was written by Judge Juan R. Torruella.
Kosilek and the DOC — under successive administrations, both Democratic and Republican — have battled in the courts for decades over what medical treatment, clothing, makeup should be provided to deal with Kosilek’s gender identity disorder.
Wolf ruled in 2012 that the only medically appropriate treatment for Kosiliek’s condition was the surgery, which would be paid for by the state since Kosilek is a state prison inmate.
But the appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wolf had wrongly substituted his own judgment for the medical professionals, who did not unanimously endorse the surgery as the only appropriate solution for the condition that all sides acknowledged contributed to a depressed mental state and suicide attempts by Kosilek.
Wolf also went too far by “circumvent[ing] the deference owed to prison administrators’’ under federal laws when the issue is the safety of prison inmates, Torruella wrote.
“The prison administrators in this case have decades of combined experience in the management of penological institutions, and it is they, not the court, who are best situated to determine what security concerns will arise,’’ Torruella wrote.
The ruling said the DOC made a valid argument when it expressed concern about the safety of Kosilek and women prisoners he potentially could be housed with once the surgery was done.
“The DOC’s security report reflected that significant concerns would also arise from housing a formerly male inmate — with a criminal history of extreme violence against a female domestic partner — within a female prison population containing high numbers of domestic violence survivors,’’ Torruella wrote.
In a statement, Public Safety Secretary Andrea Cabral said the DOC accepts as true that Kosilek suffers from gender identity disorder diagnosis, and added that was not the issue that the latest round of Kosilek litigation was resolved by the courts on Tuesday.
“The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the medical and mental health care provided to Kosilek by the DOC did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constituion,’’ Cabral said in the statement.
“While we acknowledge the legitimacy of a gender identity disorder diagnosis, DOC’s appeal was based on the lower court’s significant expansion of the standard for what constitutes adequate care under the Eighth Amendment, and on substantial safety and security concerns regarding Ms. Kosilek’s post-surgery needs,’’ Cabral said in the statement.”
Read more at the link.
[Bolding by me- GM]
Read the court decision here [PDF]: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/12-2194P2-01A.pdf
Read more about Kosilek HERE.