For the record, I am sharing an excerpt from the gender identity laws state chart that I posted on this site in 2013.
These are states in which gender identity laws have already been passed, yet protection for sex-segregation is also explicitly allowed by statute. This differs from the recent DOJ interpretations of “sex” where “gender identity” is not a separate concept, but one and same with “sex.”
The “gender identity” definition is on the right in column D. The (s)exception language protecting sex-segregation in certain spaces is in column C, middle. Compare and contrast!!
Don’t let anyone tell you there is no statutory or historical support for a female right to privacy from males in certain spaces of public accommodation.
As you can see, the protections vary in their construction but the overall message is one of legislative recognition that sex-segregation is legitimate and appropriate in certain circumstances.
View original post 1,444 more words
April 12, 2016
Popular Omaha nightclub ‘The Hive’ was the target of a transwoman sidewalk picket over the weekend. At issue was the unisex restroom now under construction at the establishment, which the bar owners intend to accommodate patrons of either sex who no longer “identify with” the restrooms designed for their anatomy. Transwomen and Drag Queens claimed the unisex facility was instead intended to discriminate against individuals with penises.The conflict was sparked when bar co-owner Jake Gardner made a comment on his personal Facebook page to his friends, stating his opinion that males should voluntarily use either male or unisex facilities unless they were transgender individuals who had undergone surgical and legal transition.
The comment sparked an online firestorm among legally-male individuals with penises who feel they “identity as” individuals with ovaries and vaginas. The bar’s business page was targeted with negative reviews and has since been taken down. “I thought I was posting to my friends, and it just went viral,” he told the Omaha World-Herald.
From the same article:
“Gardner, 34, is a self-described libertarian with long hair and a beard. He is also a former Marine, a veteran of deployments to Iraq and Haiti. He says people should be left alone to live as they see fit but says he doesn’t sugarcoat his statements.
“The last thing I would want to do is hurt a member of (the transgender) community,” he said. “But people’s feelings are going to be hurt when you bring something up that is sensitive.”
An article he read Tuesday about transgender bathrooms made him think about an assault at his bar, which he said happened a year ago. That led him to post the article along with his comments.
He described the incident like this: A person in women’s clothes but with male genitalia urinated in the women’s bathroom standing up. A woman in the bathroom said something. The person assaulted the woman. Bar staff ejected the attacker. The victim did not want a police report made, he said.
Gardner said he does not believe the person in the bathroom incident is representative of trans people as a whole. But he felt something needed to be done, leading to the bathroom project.
“I’m asking transgender folk to use the unisex … bathroom,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a big ask.”
Transwomen of Omaha disagree. Requesting male patrons to stay out of women’s facilities stigmatizes penis owners, they claim. “”It’s just kind of fear mongering,” said former ‘Occupy Omaha’ organizer Joshua Koleszar, to KETV Channel 7 News. “It’s casting us as predators and it doesn’t help forward the conversation.”
Like several of the heterosexual white male leaders of the former “Occupy” movement, Joshua has gone on to adopt an “oppressed identity” for himself, now calling himself Eris Koleszar and battling for the rights of penis owners not to be “stigmatized” by the “fear mongering” of women and girls who “oppress” him by casting penis owners as potential predators. In his spare time he lectures at lesbians on twitter, expounding on his philosophy of the radical praxis of “breaking down the barriers” of lesbian sexuality for heterosexual men.
North Carolina pushes back against transgender mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women and girls
March 24, 2016
Governor Pat McCrory signed House Bill 2 into law late Wednesday after the state legislature convened in a special one-day session to prevent a local Charlotte ordinance from taking effect April 1.
The Charlotte ordinance provided anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people but included a “Gender Identity” provision that eliminated sex-based protections for women and girls- in fact, it eliminated the legal category of “sex” entirely. The ordinance allowed any man, including convicted sex-offenders, to access women’s facilities merely by declaring a “feeling” that they were reproductively female, although male-bodied.
House Bill 2 eliminates the ability of local municipalities to enact their own unique categories of legal protections within the state. The bill also creates the first statewide anti-discrimination policy for women and girls, based on legal sex (which is already a federally-protected right but one under attack from the Obama administration -which seeks to replace the legal category of sex with “Gender Identity”, a subjective and undefined quality lacking any characteristics and based on men’s “feelings”.
North Carolina becomes the first state to officially clarify that areas of public nudity (such as restrooms and locker rooms) in state-run facilities (such as public schools and municipal buildings), are sex-segregated areas. An exception is made for transgender individuals who change their legal sex marker on their birth certificates. Transgender lobbying groups had declined to propose any sort of compromise prior to the session, claiming that excluding convicted male sex-offenders from women’s spaces would restrict the men’s rights to express their feelings.
The measure passed the House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support while all the Democrats in the Senate took the unusual step of recusing themselves by walking out of the session and declining to register a vote either way. The remaining Republicans passed the measure by unanimous 32-0 vote. The legislature will not reconvene until April 30.
How to tell if a man is in the women’s locker room for nefarious purposes or because of his “Gender Identity”
March 6, 2016
Laura Lindstrand of the Washington State Human Rights Commission on how women can determine if the creepy dude in the locker room has a psychological “Gender Identity”:
“You can tell if someone is lying or if they’re there for reasons they shouldn’t be. Are they dressed like a woman? Are they making any attempt to look like a woman? What are their mannerisms like? Are they speaking low or high? If none of those things are present, or if the person seems sneaky or belligerent, [you] can take action.”
When in doubt, women should wait for the man to commit a crime against them: “Voyeurism, stalking, inappropriate touching, sexual assault — those are all addressed under the criminal code. As soon as that person starts to display inappropriate behavior, that can be dealt with immediately. If they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing, they need to be made to leave, no matter who they are.”
Read more of Lindstrand’s wisdom here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/963235-129/how-to-talk-friends-and-family
February 17, 2016
A young man undressed twice last week in front of young girls in the women’s locker room at Seattle’s Evan’s Pool facility and police were not called due to confusion over Washington State’s new Gender Identity regulations. The rules allow any male to enter women and girl’s locker rooms, showers, restrooms, saunas, etc. by invoking his belief in “Gender Identity”, a psychological form of reproductive sex unrelated to actual biological sex. Males who enter such facilities without proclaiming a personal belief in psychological sex are subject to arrest under sex crime statutes.
The man in question twice reportedly entered the female changing facility and observed the women and girls in various stages of undress, and removed his own clothes in front of them.
“Seattle Parks and Recreation has confirmed an adult male inappropriately used a female locker room at Evans Pool in Green Lake while a youth swim team used the facilities on Feb. 8
Was the individual a male inappropriately using the facilities or a transgender female well within her rights?
“This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was ‘identifying’ as a woman,” Seattle Parks and Recreation Communications Manager David Takami told me via email. “We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.”
At around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, an adult went into the locker room to change. Takami says that at “no time did he verbally ‘identify’ as female,” nor did he request to be treated as transgender.
At the time, a local youth swim team was using the facilities. Young girls and some of their parents “became alarmed” that the male was changing in the female locker room and alerted the front desk staff. Staff members then “asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room.”
He did not accept the offer.
After his swim, he “again entered the women’s locker room to change.” Front desk staff once again asked him to leave “and he eventually did.”
Perhaps complicating matters, a witness who contacted KIRO Radio indicated this male was wearing men’s clothing as he entered the locker room.
Takami maintains that the parks department wants everyone to feel comfortable. But if this individual was, in fact, transgender, was this situation handled correctly? And is it appropriate to call the individual a male?
If this isn’t a “transgender issue” why didn’t staffers call the police? Critics of the failed transgender bathroom bill indicate there are already rules to punish people who break the law.
According to the law: “If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person’s gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available.”
But Takami says everyone involved (the patrons complaining and the male individual) were offered a separate accommodation.
The law further states: “Any action taken against a person who is using a restroom or other gender-segregated facility, such as removing a person, should be taken due to that person’s actions or behavior while in the facility, and must be unrelated to gender expression or gender identity.”
There is no indication that this individual did anything inappropriate, if the person identifies as transgender. But Seattle Parks and Recreation did not believe he was transgender. So why didn’t they call the police?
“That was an option, but staff try to deal with issues immediately, and try not to call police as the first option,” Takami said.
This incident raises questions that go to the heart of the issue and controversy over gender-neutral bathroom protections. We’re told that the concern that a male using a female locker room is overblown and rarely happens. If you were to look into this incident, because police weren’t called, there’s no paper trail that the average person could discover indicating this issue happened. The only reason we’re aware of the incident is due to a KIRO Radio listener who spoke up. So it’s problematic for activists to claim these incidents don’t happen if police aren’t always being called.
Yet another concern is whether or not this was done by an activist to make a political point.
“In following guidelines laid out by the Washington Human Right Commission, the person did not exhibit a gender presentation or gender identity consistent with gender of the locker room as was asked to leave that locker room,” said Gunner Scott, transgender advocate and former LGBT Commission for the City of Seattle. “A concern I have is if this was a setup by opponents of LGBT equality to try to exploit the recent debate of basic rights of transgender youth, adults and families, as that tactic has been used by these opponents in different states.”
It’s a valid concern and one I fear will happen just to make a point. But that’s another reason parks and recreation failed by not calling the police to report the lawbreaker.
Here is Takami’s full statement to the Jason Rantz Show:
On Monday, Feb. 8, around 5:30 p.m., an individual, a young adult, came into the pool lobby, paid the fee for lap swim, and went into the woman’s locker room to change. At no time did he verbally “identify” as female. Staff didn’t see which locker room he entered as it was a busy time of day with a lot of swimmers coming and going. Previous to lap swim time at the pool was a local youth swim team practice. After lap swim was another children’s swim time.
Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff. In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women’s locker room and asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room. Other patrons were also offered the alternative of the family changing room. He eventually left the women’s locker room. After the lap swim, he again entered the women’s locker room to change. Front desk staff again asked him to leave and he eventually did.
This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was “identifying” as a woman. We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities.”
Seattle’s King5 News Station provides further details:
“As far as policy to protect everyone, Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami says they’re still working on the issue. Right now, there’s no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.”
HUD proposed regulation forces homeless women and girls to bunk and bathe with men who claim to feel psychologically female: January 19 deadline for public comment
January 6, 2016
Julian Castro, the US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (and the likely Vice Presidential running-mate of Hilary Clinton) has announced his agency’s intention to eliminate the legally protected category of sex in homeless shelters nationwide, eliminating the right of vulnerable women and girls to shower, sleep and toilet separately from homeless men.
HUD had previously issued a non-binding “guidance” document back in February 2015 suggesting that physical sex be redefined as “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” and prohibiting those providers of homeless services who receive HUD funding from inquiring about the physical sex or sexual orientation of service recipients. Kind of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision. Providers were instructed to assess clients on the basis of adherence to sex-role stereotypes and make their own determination of the client’s transgender status. Those suspected of possible cross-sex identification were to be advised that the agency provides placement based on “gender-related characteristics”, and not physical sex: “where a provider is uncertain of the client’s sex or gender identity and that information matters for the determination of placement, the provider informs the client or potential client that the agency provides shelter based on the individual’s gender identity.”
HUD’s non-binding February 2015 “guidance” was similar to those recently issued by other Federal Obama administration agencies [such as the DOE’s “guidance” overturning Title IX protections for women and girls, and the DOL’s “guidance” eliminating privacy for women in workplace accommodations] which attempt to reinterpret existing protected sex categories into a cluster of unspecified psychological characteristics which the government redefines as the core human reproductive trait, overriding biology (or any other objective measure).
The proposed new rule is a modification of the previous “guidance” that HUD issued and will change federal law, officially removing sex as a protected category and creating precedent for other agencies to bypass the legislature, judiciary, and public debate in eliminating the legal category of sex under which women’s rights are protected. (HUD Secretary Julian Castro actually cites the DOE’s recent highly controversial reinterpretation of physical sex -as a subjective psychological self-perceived essence- under Title IX as the governmental authority which sets the precedent justifying his own agency’s move to elevate its internal “guidance” into federal regulation.)
Julian Castro’s new HUD rule will be the first official elimination of legal sex-based protections for private citizens under federal law by agency regulation, and homeless impoverished women in crisis- largely women of color with children, most of them survivors of male violence- are the first targets. Under this new law legal sex status will be redefined by the US government as “gender identity” defined as such:
“Gender identity means the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.”
Biological sex will be conflated with sex-stereotypes of “appearance, behavior, expression and other gender-related characteristics” and become “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.”
This law is designed to allow homeless males to bathe and bunk in shelters set aside for females and specifically forbids agencies to consider the rights of women and girls to bathe, bunk, and bathroom separately from men. There is no provision for “improper purpose”. There is no “right to privacy”. There are 18 references to “health and safety” issues and concerns but the source of potential dis-ease and danger is never identified:
“In deciding how to house a [transgender] victim, a recipient that provides sex-segregated housing may consider on a case-by-case basis whether a particular housing assignment would ensure the victim’s health and safety. A victim’s own views with respect to personal safety deserve serious consideration.”
“..taking health and safety concerns into consideration. A client’s or potential client’s own views with respect to personal health and safety should be given serious consideration in making the placement. For instance, if the potential client requests to be placed based on his or her sex assigned at birth, HUD assumes that the provider will place the individual in accordance with that request, consistent with health, safety, and privacy concerns.”
“..whether a particular housing assignment would ensure health and safety. It is prohibited for such a determination to be based solely on a person’s actual or perceived gender identity or on complaints of other shelter residents when those complaints are based on actual or perceived gender identity. It is likewise prohibited to deny appropriate placement based on a perceived threat to health or safety..”
“..legitimate safety concerns that may arise in any shelter, building, or facility covered by this rule.”
“..eliminate the safety risk and that has available accommodations..”
“…since it would not apply unless the facts and circumstances demonstrated a nondiscriminatory risk to health or safety that could not be eliminated or appropriately mitigated by policy adjustments and physical modifications to buildings and facilities.”
“HUD recognizes a limited exception to accommodating individuals in accordance with the individual’s gender identity when a recipient, subrecipient, owner, operator, manager, or provider identifies a legitimate safety risk that cannot be eliminated or appropriately mitigated”
“keeping a record of when a legitimate safety risk is identified.”
“accommodation is necessary to ensure health and safety. It shall be prohibited for such a determination to be based solely on a person’s actual or perceived gender identity, the complaints of other clients, beneficiaries, or employees when those complaints are based on actual or perceived gender identity, or on an actual or perceived threat to health or safety that can be mitigated in some other way that is less burdensome. In order to avoid unwarranted denials of placement in accordance with an individual’s gender identity, decisions to provide accommodations based on concern for the health and safety of the individual..”
At no point is the nature of this “threat to health and safety” identified. Epidemic male violence is apparently not only a protected government-sanctioned institution beyond reproach but one which cannot be named. While a male or male-identified transgender client’s “own views with respect to personal safety deserve serious consideration” and his “own views with respect to personal health and safety should be given serious consideration in making the placement”, women’s views with respect to their own personal safety are not only disregarded but explicitly prohibited by law: “It is likewise prohibited to deny appropriate placement based on a perceived threat to health or safety..”
Homeless males can identify as female or male and access whichever facility they prefer. Atlanta’s 600-bed Peachtree-Pine Shelter estimated that 5% of the male homeless population is transgender (using the no longer required definition: males who regularly adopt some social cues traditionally associated with females). “Women are allowed to stay in the men’s shelter — because Peachtree-Pine is not supposed to turn anyone away — but they can only stay in the lobby area overnight sitting upright in a chair, said Tony Thomas, the shelter’s spokesperson. So when given the option of sitting in a chair all night or sleeping in a cot, many transwomen will identify and “present” as male, he added.”
According to Mark “Mara” Keisling’s National Center for Trans Equality (NCTE) 49% of homeless transwomen report a history of criminal incarceration. [PDF]
Presumably this measure solely serves the desires of some men to be housed with women. Only a sociopath would suggest a female transgender (FTM) be housed among men. Toronto’s ‘Trans Communities Shelter Access Project’ claims that multiple homeless “transmen” have been gang-raped in men’s shelters: “Although a female-to-male trans person (trans man) might identify themselves as a man… the reality for many is that surgery and hormones are expensive, passing is out of reach, and men’s services are not safe for a trans man who may not pass. If an FtM has not been approved for testosterone, or had a mastectomy, (and even if he has…) then he is at risk for physical, verbal, and sexual assault in men’s dorms/ bathrooms/ and showers. There have been incidents of gang rape toward FtM’s in men’s shelters. Some FtM’s may choose to face these risks in a shelter that validates their identity… but they should not have to. There are no FtM shelters or rape crisis centers, so as men who face (or have faced) sexual assault, spousal abuse, and gender discrimination, there is, as of yet, no place better equipped to meet the needs of FtM’s than women’s services.”
As required by the Administrative Procedure Act this proposed law has been filed with the Federal Register for public comment. HUD is required to respond to issues raised by the public before adopting the law. The deadline is January 19. Comments may be submitted by mail or posted online here:
Comments must include the name and number of the regulation:
FR–5863–P–01 Equal Access in Accordance With an Individual’s Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs
You can also view the comments that have been submitted. As of now, 30 comments have been received. 20 have been published. 14 have been discarded due to duplication via (transgender activist) mass mailing campaign. 4 are obviously duplicate mass mailers from transgender activists. 10 are yet unpublished. Only two comments mention the welfare of women and girls.
[bolding by me-GM]
December 29, 2015
The latest in the ongoing saga of the contentious new transgender student policy at the Virginia district. This is actually pretty funny. Apparently the district never defined the newly protected category of “Gender Identity” but they did warn students in the Student Handbook that they will be suspended if they discriminate against it. The suit, filed December 21 by district resident Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition hinges on that fact, and also that the state has a legal principal, “Dillion’s Rule” that prohibits municipalities from creating their own protected classes.
The LOLsuit’s plaintiffs are Lafferty, Fairfax County high school student Jack Doe, his parents John and jane Doe, and his friends, also John and Jane Doe. [PDF]
From the complaint:
“68. On May 7, 2015 “gender identity” and “gender expression” were added to the Booklet as grounds for student discipline, but Defendant did not define “gender identity” or “gender expression” anywhere in the Booklet. (Exhibit F).
- Neither “gender identity” nor “gender expression” are defined in the Virginia Constitution or Code of Virginia, including Section 22.1-279.3 which Defendant cites as the authority for drafting and revising the Booklet.
- Jack Doe is particularly distressed about the Board’s decision to add “gender identity” to the non-discrimination policy and to the student code of conduct because “gender identity” is not defined in either the policy or the code, so Jack Doe has no idea what words or conduct might be interpreted as discriminating on the basis of “gender identity,” and therefore does not know what speech or conduct might subject him to discipline, including suspension.
- Jack Doe is distressed about the Board’s decision to add “gender identity” to the non- discrimination policy and student code of conduct because he understands that the decision will mean that the restrooms, locker rooms and other intimate spaces set apart, respectively, for boys and girls, will now be open to students who might have the physical features of one sex but are permitted to use the bathroom of the opposite sex which the student “identifies” as, whatever that means.
- Because the new policy and code of conduct are not sufficiently defined, Jack Doe has no way of knowing whether he can, for example, question someone who appears to be a girl using the boys’ restroom or locker room, refer to someone by a certain pronoun or even compliment someone on his/her attire without being subject to discipline for “discrimination.”
- Jack Doe is nervous about having to think about every statement or action and its potential sexual connotations to third parties before interacting with students and teachers, and the prospect of having to interact in such an uncertain environment creates significant distress to the point that it adversely affects his ability to participate in and benefit from the educational program.
- Jack Doe is terrified of the thought of having to share intimate spaces with students who have the physical features of a girl, seeing such conduct as an invasion of his privacy, invasion of fellow students’ privacy and a violation of the though patterns and understanding about male and female relationships which are part of his cultural values.
- Because of Defendant’s actions, Jack Doe cannot regard school as a safe place where he can learn what he needs to be a productive and well-educated adult without fear of harassment, being charged with harassment, and having his speech and conduct chilled by the fear of reprisals or of discipline for unknowingly violating the ambiguous code of conduct.
- Jack Doe’s ability to fully and freely participate in and benefit from the school’s educational program has been significantly diminished by the Defendant’s actions in adding the undefined terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the non-discrimination policy and student code of conduct.”