November 15, 2015
Originally posted on Stop Trans Chauvinism:
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM RUTH BARRETT – Nov. 13th, 2015
Women are being burned at the stake based on erroneous evidence. This is being done without a trial and without any opportunity to give voice to her truth or her side of the story. Any attempt to clarify or engage in conversation that directly impacts the reputations, livelihoods and social standing of the accused women have been repeatedly disregarded in favor of the investment in one faction of our community’s beliefs and agenda. Shame on us as a pagan community for condoning and participating in behavior that not one of us would wish to be the recipient of.
I’m writing to illuminate, clarify and articulate my own experience of personal harassment and the organized and concerted effort to diminish my livelihood and personal reputation during this past week.
Last week I signed a petition circulating on Change.org asking…
View original 2,092 more words
Two black male transwomen, two white lesbian non-binaries, and one white male autogynephile set the genderist world on its ear last night when the handful of protesters upstaged Caitlyn Jenner’s appearance at a $500 a plate benefit for the Chicago House, a non-profit founded to provide case management and services for individuals with HIV and AIDS. Like many such agencies the HIV funding is now being redirected to provide hormones to transgender individuals.
The Jenner event was hosted by ESPN commentator Chris “Christine” Kahrl, a white heterosexual male homphobe best known to GenderTrender readers as the fellow who called MMA fighter Tamika Brents a “noisy” black woman whose hospitalization with career ending injuries following her bout with male fighter Fallon Fox was her “just desserts” for excluding males from her lesbian dating pool.
Inside the event, Jenner regaled the multi-millionaire and billionaire white heterosexual “transwomen” Republicans with audience friendly anecdotes about his pleasurable hobby of secretly dressing up in his daughter’s clothes when they were not at home. Transgender male luminaries contracted by the E! entertainment network to act as his friends: Candis Cayne, Jenny Boylan, Kate Bornstein, attended him. Fallon Fox, the man who lied about his sex in order to batter women out of competition in the burgeoning female combat sports arena, sat next to him.In the under five hundred dollar seats, out on the curb, a quite different narrative was being told. This perspective was sponsored not by the 1%, not by rich white Republican men, not by the E! television network but by a young lesbian attempting to escape male persecution via testosterone injection named Billie Jane Kincaid and by a male attempting to escape persecution by other men for his naturally occurring “feminine” traits named Temara. Temara “Jaz” Robinson, a black bisexual male transwoman, is an accomplished organizer in the Black Lives Matter movement and sat on the Chicago ‘Black Trans Lives Matter’ panel in August with Monica James, who [since his release from prison four years ago following a seven year sentence for the aggravated battery of an off-duty gay police officer] has been active in the prison abolition movement.
Unlike the rest of the “LGBT” press, GenderTrender will let them speak for themselves.
This is Temara Robinson’s statement inciting the protest, from the facebook event page:
“caitlyn jenner literally makes me feel suicidal. This person is pretending to be trans for media attention. I hate this person’s whiteness, this person’s big meaty man voice, this person’s history of sexism and impregnating women (because all women stick their penis in someone and leave the children behind to become media trash stars). I hate this person’s tv show. I hate this person’s stupid magazine cover, and most of all, i hate the Chicago house for thinking that this is representative of trans people. jenner is a men’s right’s activist and deadbeat dad who is cashing in on media hype arond trans people. I DO NOT accept this person as a woman, trans or anything else. I”m going to be going off about this in the lobby and/or out front theatrically. If you have a problem with this, stay at home. Some people have actually had to suffer for being trans, not jenner. The Chicago house thinks trans people are just some frivolous dumbasses who want to wear pretty dresses. It’s about way more than that, at least for me and most other trans people who were around before the era of terrible action dudebro movie directors becoming women, walmart core rockstars becoming women, and terrible shows that make prison seem like summer camp. Liberation, not representation. I hate you jenner, and anyone who thinks that this person deserves support for their “courage”is transphobic. Im not that guy fuck that.
this person’s success is derived from white male privelege, then they appropriate an identity of trans people for a little dressup game media circus,and the nonprofit industrial complex eats this shit up. It’s so fitting. Rich guy helps make money for the social service organization that goes out of business if we actually eradicated homelessness. All of this is a frace of capitalism, racism and male supremacy.
This action is going to be sketchy as fuck. Just warning you. No thousand dollar sound system, no george sorors grant to fund us, no spineless, quid pro quo pushing political groups to “endorse us”, this is just some pissed off trans people who see right through the nonprofit industrial complex ego circle jerk and this trans-trender bruce jenner”
Here are the videos:
Temara Robinson’s statement after the protest:
“Instead of allowing the trolling of people who obviously have no idea what this action was about, and who want to pick at a few words and phrases that i said and say i’m just transphbic,l i’m going to post one more time a rundown of our messaging here and pin it. People who attended, and those who have been around me in an organizing or on a personal level understand that this is bullshit. Again, here is the full context of our message
“A nonprofit industrial complex, fuled by white male and daddy tranny egos, one that only seeks to perpetuate itself (that has overspent tokenized black trans women employees, paying part time, minimum wage hours) while paying CEOs nearly half a million dollars when there are more empty housing units in in xicago than there are homeless people, cannot exit if homelessness were eradicated.What have you bought into? what will it take to buy you out?
I present to anyone who will take it, a check, blank, paid to the order of “your white guilt”
Jenner, you took the male privelege train to the last stop and bought a ticket back out of boredom. The publicity and frivoloty of your transition insults the process of trans people geuinely breaking the violent gender biinary, as well as the women born female who you despise.
you insult women and trans people with your appropriation, your media spectacle, and your hatred for sickening, and the fact that the chicago house will pander to this, while paying their ceo six figures and expecting black trans womento take crumbs from the cookies we bake you.
This is the start of a new trans movement. An anti-racist, anti-colonialst, pro woman, trans movement that doesn’t take its orders from nonprofits, bilionare liberals or the state and doesn’t pander to an audence that would rather lazily bing watch us in prison than concieve for one moment of world were our bodily autonomy, self-definition, and freedom from violence and oppression are non-negotiable
To these queer and trans people i see walking out here, why were you inside there? Why would you rather see us pander to the systems that harm us for crumbs while we hand them cookies for not killing us (at least not right away)
Fuck that! Fuck Chicago house” –violet black”
Well there you have it.
When you want the unvarnished truth: You want GenderTrender. Thanks for stopping by.
HERO crushed in Houston as public becomes educated about the impact of “Gender Identity” on sex-segregated areas of public nudity
November 4, 2015
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).
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.
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”.
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.
October 24, 2015
October 19, 2015
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) http://www.sheilajeffreys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/toilet-article.pdfpublished-version.pdf
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: https://outofmypantiesnow.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/when-is-90-not-substantially-all/ 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: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/men-love-the-ladies-restroom-transgender-edition/ 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. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211165/Transexual-prisoner-wins-High-Court-battle-moved-womens-jail.html
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. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8238380/man-dressed-as-mannequin-found-in-mall-toilet
Pazzano, Sam (2014, 15 February). A sex predator’s sick deception. Toronto Sun. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/a-sex-predators-sick-deception
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
October 6, 2015
Officials at the University of Toronto were forced to eliminate their “gender neutral” bathroom policy after a string of incidents involving women being filmed while showering. On at least two separate occasions last month, female students spotted cell phones being held over the stall partition to record them while they bathed. The perpetrators have not been caught. No word yet on whether the victims will sue the University for putting them at risk with the policy, which restricted women’s ability to bathe and use the toilet away from the presence of men.
“Toronto Police Const. Victor Kwong said Monday that two women in separate instances at the Whitney Hall residence reported that they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them. Police have yet to find any information about the culprit, but the investigation is ongoing.
At least one gender-neutral washroom remains on each floor.
Melinda Scott, the dean of students at University College, said some bathrooms in Whitney Hall have now been designated specifically for residents who identify as men or women. However, several gender-neutral bathrooms remain.
“The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by the incidents of voyeurism and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom,” said Scott.
“On two separate occasions — September 15 and 19 — two female residents at the university’s Whitney Hall residence building were the victims of voyeurism, having been filmed while they were showering. As a result, Whitney Hall and its four University College (UC) housing affiliates have revoked their gender neutral policy on many of the residence’s washrooms.
It fell to Melinda Scott, dean of students at UC, to break the news. “Given the serious nature of these incidents and the impact on directly affected students, we made the decision to specifically designate some washrooms throughout the building for those who identify as men and those who identify as women. At the same time, there remains at least one gender-neutral washroom per floor and per house,” Scott said in a statement to The Varsity.
Many students are in shock. “It’s scary to think that there’s someone nearby that’s doing that kind of thing,” said Tessa Mahrt-Smith, a first-year Whitney resident. Melissa Birch, also a first-year resident of Whitney and shares Mahrt-Smith’s sentiments. “I think it sucks that there are going to be people that don’t feel safe in Whitney now, and that we can’t have an inclusive environment.”