Gender Identity Laws allow “Transwoman” to exhibit his erect penis in Toronto YMCA women’s locker room
January 19, 2014
Yet another example of the “Colleen Francis” effect of Gender Identity laws and how they allow men to inflict sexual abuse on women and girls in locker rooms and other sex-segregated areas of public nudity. In this instance, a 70 year old woman described what happened to her in a question she sent to the advice column of her local newspaper, the Toronto Star:
“I am a senior woman. Recently, a “man” claiming to be transgender, who had not yet begun physical treatments, was permitted by our local Y to use the women’s locker room. There are no secure change rooms. The person they allowed in was not courteous and stared at me while I struggled out of a wet bathing suit. He was naked, had an erection and playfully asked ‘do you come here often?’ I understand that gender is no longer judged solely by genitalia, but does a brief contact with the duty manager mean that men not yet committed to gender reassignment are free to disrobe anywhere they choose?”
Did transgender activists respond with concern and address the fact that Gender Identity protections remove the rights of women to be free from male sexual abuse in public areas? No. Instead, they claimed that the sexual assault was a “false claim by right-wingers” and “a hoax”, the same way anti-feminist men blame rape victims by citing “false rape claims”. Did transactivists like Autumn Sandeen and Cristan Williams express an ounce of empathy or concern for the elderly woman abused by the “transwoman”? No they did not. They accused the woman of making a false claim, calling her a liar, for no other reason except that they would rather allow women and girls to be sexually abused than address the way Gender Identity laws eliminate rights and protections for women and girls.
Likewise, the advice columnist who responded to the woman’s letter advised her that Gender Identity laws allowed men “the absolute right” to exhibit their penises in women’s locker rooms, and that basically she should get used to it. He kind of waffled a bit on the erection part, deeming it “unacceptable” – but providing no clear measure to legally halt the behavior. And if erect penises are “unacceptable” but non-erect ones are “an absolute right” for strange men to inflict on women and girls in YMCA locker-rooms, then what about the partially erect? Is that “partially unacceptable”? Or an “absolute right”? The male advice columnist doesn’t explain. “You’re on your own, toots! Sucks being you!” the guy seems to say, like the transgender activists, assigning no value or concern to the female experience of male sexual assault. The issue raised by the woman’s question -namely that any man at any time can claim to be transgender to access the women’s change room to freely abuse women sexually, as was done to her, was poo-pooed and the victim was lectured on the importance of men’s sexual rights.
In fact, the whole matter was dropped, with the columnist hand-waving away female sexual assault and the transactivists doing the same (but calling the woman a liar as well) until transactivists began also claiming that the newspaper should not in future publish any sexual assault claims from any woman, ever, if the male perpetrator invokes a Gender Identity. The Toronto Star eventually decided that ongoing transactivist accusations that the victim falsified her claims reflected badly on the paper, having published them. So after two weeks of allowing transgender activists to rail heartlessly against a 70 year old victim of a sexual assault, the Star finally published a rebuttal today titled “Transgender Rights Letter No Hoax”.
Star editor Kathy English writes:
“I can tell you I have telephoned and talked to the North York woman whose name is on the email sent to Star ethics columnist Ken Gallinger in October. I have also confirmed that the YMCA of Greater Toronto received a similar letter from a former member in late fall. Last week, an executive of the organization contacted the same North York woman I talked with.
If this woman’s letter was a hoax perpetuated by organized forces opposed to transgender rights, as many in the transgender community through North America and beyond have declared with all certainty, then it is indeed a grand and elaborate one played on both the Star and the YMCA.
The woman would not agree to come forward publicly for this column. She spoke confidentially to me, in line with her expectation of confidentiality in the ethics column. “I am asking the Star to protect my privacy,” she said. “I would not rest easy if any group decided to approach me personally.”
She told me she is 70. She said the incident she described in her letter to Gallinger in which a naked “man” claiming to be a transgender woman behaved inappropriately happened “a couple of years ago” in the late afternoon in the women’s locker room of the Toronto Y on Sheppard Ave.
She said she shared her concerns with the Y manager at the time but felt she was not taken seriously. She said the branch manager contacted her in the fall after she sent her letter and she was again contacted by a senior executive of the Y following publication of the Star column.”
“She felt she was not taken seriously”. It is no surprise the victim is still seeking answers after the traumatizing sexual assault that has been ignored, dismissed, and “not taken seriously” again and again and again. By the YMCA. By transactivists. By the ethics advice columnist at the local newspaper, Ken Gallinger,who actually wrote an entire column today expressing his “deep resentment” that allowing women to report the sexual assaults that men commit MAY MAKE MEN LOOK BAD. Disgusting! Truly disgusting. It would not be surprising if the victim was still traumatized every time she stepped into a locker room to disrobe. It would not be surprising if she felt stressed by the prospect of her granddaughters using the locker room at the YMCA, or anywhere else where Gender Identity laws erase the rights of women and girls to privacy, including the right to be free from strange males forcing us to view their erections as they watch us struggle to change out of a wet bathing suit in a public locker room.
January 18, 2014
I’m starting a thread here for anyone who wants to discuss this article:
Sample of text and formatting from Dr. V’s Website: Read the rest of this entry »
This is too damn funny. CNN ran an article today titled “Katie Couric’s Gaffe: What not to say to trans people” on the recent topic of how no one is ever supposed to mention that guys like Laverne Cox and Carmen Cerrera, while they may claim to be female, actually have dicks and balls. Hahaha! What is so funny about that? “Gaffe”, (alternately spelled “Gaff”) is the term for the method transgender males use to disguise their dick. Hahaha! Confusing!
A Gaffe/Gaff is whatever device a transgender dude uses to strap down his dick, from the poor man’s duct tape to a specialized “genital hiding undergarment” as marketed on a trillion male transgender websites.
“Method 1. Lying down, pull the gaff up to your upper thighs. The wide part should be facing the front and the thinner part is in the back. Put your testicles up into your abdominal cavoty. You can do this by simply holding each testicle and gently pushing until you find the opening for the cavity. Once you have both testicles up, hold them there in front (you will be able to feel them protruding around your public hair) and tuck your penis between your legs and pull your gaff up. You should now have a flat appearance in front. If you are wearing tight fitting clothes- this method is best. If you obtain an erection using the method, it will cause pain so be careful.
Method 2. When you are not wearing tight fitting clothing and want a somewhat smoother appearance in your genital area, simply put on the gaff and push your penis down flat-but you do not have to put your testicles into the abdominal cavity.
How could a transgender author make such a humorous, unintentionally subversive choice of title on an opinion piece AGAINST discussing men hiding their dicks? Easy. The author is a female trans named T. Cooper who probably has encyclopedic knowledge in the practice of breast binding but lacks basic knowledge of male trans culture and practice, and gay male drag culture which originated the term. The transgender community is notoriously segregated by sex and sexual orientation.
I guess this “gaffe” was a “teaching moment” that news outlet CNN decided was too hot to handle. CNN scrubbed the headline a few hours later.
Coming soon: “Kouric in a bind over questioning whether FTMs have breasts”. lolol
October 16, 2013
You will seldom see a more sobering example of the utter disrespect, silencing, censorship and complete removal of women and lesbian representation from public discourse regarding our rights as human beings than you will from the New York Times this evening.
The Times has initiated a male-only “debate” about the impact of attaching the transgender politic (which promotes and codifies noxious social sex roles and sex stereotypes against women) onto the lesbian and gay rights movement. Eliminated from this debate are the women and lesbians whose rights are directly at odds with this movement.
The New York Times culled ALL women from this discussion. They invited six men: four gay, and two male genderists (one gay: drag queen Laverne Cox from RuPaul’s “Drag Race”), and one straight (explicitly anti-lesbian activist Susan Stryker, who has campaigned to outlaw lesbian public gatherings, organizations and activism on the basis that they exclude men) to “decide” whether the LGBT movement should further support the anti-female sex roles and sex stereotypes championed by the transgenderist movement.
Missing from this discussion of women’s rights? Women. Missing from this discussion of the lesbian and gay movement? LESBIANS. All of us. Every single one. Total and complete lesbian and woman erasure.
Much like the recent assembly of all-male US legislators who convened to impose legal limits on our female right to control the reproductive capacity of our own bodies this “debate” will include none of the people involved. WOMEN. LESBIANS.
The “Grey Lady”, once considered a reliable balanced news outlet, has gone full-on …. irrelevant. There is a reason millions of people read blogs like mine while the Times goes out of business. That reason is WOMEN. Keep chatting amongst yourselves boys. Good luck with that bros.
October 12, 2013
“I knew when she was little. She was I’d say 3, 3 and a half. And like any typical parent we would read the story books and fairy tales and all kinds of stuff. And we ended up reading Cinderella, she wanted to read Cinderella, so we were reading Cinderella and at the end of the story she told me that she was gonna grow up and marry herself a handsome prince. We tried to convince her that she was gonna grow up and marry a princess and she was adamant that no, she was going to marry a prince. So at that point, yanno we’d kinda thought it was a phase and she would grow out of it. And it turns out it wasn’t a phase. So when she came to us when she was seven and said that this isn’t how she wanted to live and if she had to live this way she didn’t want to… we went looking for help. And got in touch with family services of york region, met Barbara, and one thing after another after another and here we are and we have “Danielle”.
We didn’t know for the longest time what we were gonna be faced with. We knew that there was something there. So we chose to basically ignore it for a little while to see where things would go. But she got very behavioral, withdrawn, yanno tended to not wanna come out and play, she just wanted to sit in her room. So we kept trying to talk to her and ask her like what’s going on, how are you feeling, why are you feeling this way, and most of the time it would end up with her in tears shutting down, wouldn’t talk to us. And then the one day I was cooking dinner and she came out and told me flat out- I don’t wanna live like this anymore. I want to be a girl. I am a girl. And so the choice was made to… let her make the choice. You’re either Daniel, or you’re Danielle. You make the choice.
And obviously… what her choice was.
Look how the hack reporter Carys Mills lazily re-frames the actual words mom says into the “typical transgender narrative”, and uses that narrative to shill for the “Sick Children” facility for “Sick Children Who Are Flaming Homos” where Daniel will be “treated” by retarding his pre-pubertal gonads followed by sterilization to correct his defect of wanting to marry a prince. WAKE UP Gays and Lesbians and so-called supporters. WAKE UP. This is happening ON YOUR WATCH.
DO something. SPEAK UP in your COMMUNITY, on websites that post this shit, to your government representatives that you VOTE for, at the BAR, at the bus stop, at your CHURCH, to your family and co-workers, to your BARBER, at the grocery store, at your LGBT CENTER, at your pride march, on your FACEBOOK, to the news agencies.
Seven year old kids ARE NOT CONSENTING TO THIS. It is THEIR PARENTS who are DOING SO. Stop them from transgendering boys who WANT TO MARRY A PRINCE. Speak up for seven year-old Daniel. SPEAK UP FOR DANIEL. This is BULLSHIT! HOMOPHOBIC BULLSHIT! This could have been YOU. And you KNOW it. So STOP THIS SHIT. Fuck some shit up. Do it FOR DANIEL.
Speak up and say “LET KIDS BE KIDS”. And “GAY KIDS ARE NOT SICK KIDS”. Including GAY KIDS who want to marry a FUCKING PRINCE.
October 7, 2013
October 2, 2013
By Brendan O’Neill, Editor of Spiked:
Trans activists really need to lighten up
Transsexuals’ histrionic response to every slight only confirms how flimsy their identity is.
Why are transsexual activists so sensitive to criticism? This is a serious question, not an insult. There must be some reason why the trans community, as it calls itself, is worse at taking criticism or tolerating insulting commentary than, say, the Christian community or the butch lesbian community, both of which also get flak on the internet and elsewhere but don’t tend to respond to it in the way trans types do.
Over the past fortnight we’ve had loads of histrionics from trans activists. Feminist Julie Bindel was hounded off a panel discussion at a British university because she once criticised trans people. Roseanne Barr, maker of the best sitcom of the Eighties, currently stands accused of ‘transphobia’ basically because she tweeted favourably about someone who criticised the trans identity. This follows the trans community’s successful removal of Julie Burchill’s trans-slamming article from the website of the Observer earlier this year. When I wrote a piece arguing that Bradley Manning is not a woman, despite his claims to the contrary, I was bombarded with suggestions that I should kill myself. This from trans activists who (ludicrously) held Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn responsible for the suicide of a trans schoolteacher and said the media must be careful never to criticise this community lest its members feel tempted to kill themselves.
Of course, ours is an age of super-sensitivity, when feeling offended, and more importantly loudly and proudly declaring your feelings of offence, has become the lifeblood of public discourse. But there are different degrees of offence-taking. Some groups seem more capable of riding out criticism than others. Yes, Christian outfits play the victim card and bleat to officialdom about feeling offended by an ad or an article, but mostly they just ignore web-based Christian-bashing, which is voluminous. Islamists are more sensitive, hollering for beheadings whenever someone mocks Muhammad or says the Koran is cobblers.
And the trans lobby is even more sensitive than that, reacting with censorious anger not only to insults but also to people’s allegedly incorrect use of language, to being called ‘a transsexual’, for example, rather than ‘a member of the trans community’. They even picket the offices of newspapers that have the temerity to piss them off. Why the extraordinary touchiness?
I think it reflects the fundamental flimsiness of the trans identity, the fragility of this so-called community. Transsexuals’ hopping-mad reaction to any perceived slight doesn’t confirm that they are a well-organised, increasingly cocky gang holding the world to ransom, as some have claimed. Rather it reveals the opposite – that this is a ‘community’ so sadly uncertain of its own claims, so instinctively aware of the largely phoney nature of its arguments, that it must protect itself from any form of public ridicule or questioning lest its facade be knocked down.
The rule of modern-day identity politics and offence-taking seems to be this: the less rooted and real one’s identity is, the more obsessed one becomes with erecting a forcefield around it in order to keep at bay awkward query-raisers.