October 26, 2016
Dominic Holden of Buzzfeed has published a blockbuster report outlining the split between top-funded LGBT lobbying groups over their ongoing battle to force women to give up areas segregated by sex for women’s privacy and protection from epidemic male sexual violence against women (changing rooms, showers, locker rooms, restrooms, hospital rooms, homeless shelters, lesbian services, domestic violence refuges, prison cells, etc) in order that men who desire to impose themselves on the women in those spaces would enjoy the right to do so.
Turns out the plan of convincing women and girls that male violation of female privacy is actually a Good Thing hasn’t panned out too well, and women still don’t want strange men exposing their dicks and they still don’t like strange males watching them as they wrestle out of a wet bathing suit in the locker room at the YMCA.
This, even though it’s been explained to them that biological sex doesn’t really exist and that the whole global male targeting of women thing isn’t even a thing. Even though they’ve been educated that women’s fear of creepy dudes doing god knows what fucked up thing is actually a kooky form of silly female hysteria and social panic. Even though they’ve been reassured that no man alive would ever shoulder the humiliation of throwing on a wig just to have a free ticket to get their freak on at women’s expense. Even though it’s been explained to them that some men are really scared of the other men in sex segregated spaces and/or that it really, really hurts men’s feelings that women have a boundary against male entry to spaces where they are pulling their pants down or inserting a tampon. Even though they’ve been let to know that any male who believes himself to have “female feelings” is incapable of, through commission or act of omission, taking any action which is harmful towards a female person and no such act has ever been recorded in the history of humankind. Even though they’ve been told that letting guys expose themselves and allowing them to gaze upon women undressing may be part of their prescribed psychiatric treatment plan for a ‘Gender Identity’ that all women must sacrifice their comfort and privacy in order to participate in implementing. Unless they are heartless, cruel, hysterical, prudish, bigoted, crazy, awful, nasty women. Of course. Women who want countless men to suffer gruesome violent deaths by murder and suicide all caused by their selfishness.
Anyway, the LGBT campaign against women’s right to privacy and safety, funded by millions (billions?) hasn’t worked out after a decade or so. To paraphrase Barney Frank’s cogent observation at the time of the ENDA debacle: women don’t want you to inflict your dicks on them. Crazy, huh guys?
Holden’s Buzzfeed piece exposes the breakdown of the alliance of the former Gay Rights Movement and the Transgender Penis Rights Movement and their frustration over their dual inability to coerce consent from unwilling women.
Tough break guys. Who could have seen it coming.
Well worth a read:
October 22, 2016
Not only will I be back soon THANKS TO YOU!!!!!!!❤❤❤ XOXOX
But I will be back with an AWESOME computer FAR BETTER than what I’ve been using FOR YEARS!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m going to cut this short because I am almost crying* over this.
Thanks to you there will be an extreme upgrade in services rendered by me. #KICKASS
I’ve been working under remarkably constricting technology since my original computer was deceased two years ago. I won’t bore you. But that is ALL OVER NOW (or will be in the next few weeks as I get things sorted).
Not only will this blog reflect an increase in quality (at least technically, har har) but your generosity has provided me with potential opportunities to pursue other unrelated projects via this computer which may increase my quality of life.
To those who contributed:
I CAN’T THANK YOU ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, I don’t know what to say, except THANK YOU.
You have saved this blog, made me feel MUSHY, and opened up a world of opportunity for me via the new KICK ASS OMGGGGG! computer.
*with happiness and woo woo if that isn’t clear!
September 22, 2016
Former British Women’s Fell Running Champion Lauren Jeska confessed in court today to committing a vicious premeditated triple stabbing attack on British sports authorities last March at Alexander Stadium.
“Women athlete who tried to murder sports official was transgender and facing review into medals”, reports the UK Mirror Online:
“Sean Kyne, District Crown Prosecutor from West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Lauren Jeska had a disagreement with British Athletics officials which escalated and rather than resolve the matter through the appropriate channels, she armed herself with a number of knives, drove from her home in Wales to Birmingham and launched a premeditated and savage attack on the victim which resulted in the victim and his colleagues sustaining a number of life threatening injuries.”
“Fell Runner Lauren Jeska tried to kill British athletics official because she feared the body would revoke her titles over transgender status” The Telegraph reports:
“Lauren Jeska, 42, admitted attempting to murder former professional rugby player Ralph Knibbs, 51, during a hearing at Birmingham Crown Court yesterday.
It is understood a review was being planned into her status as a female athlete because she had been born a man. Her titles could have been in doubt if UK Athletics ruled that she had had an unfair advantage while competing against women, sources suggested.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and West Midlands Police confirmed Jeska was a transgender athlete after the hearing.
She also admitted two counts of having a knife in a public place and two of assault causing actual bodily harm.
On March 22, Jeska, from Machynlleth, Powys, drove from her home in Wales to the British Athletic headquarters in Perry Barr, Birmingham, armed with a number of knives.
A CPS spokesman said: “The defendant entered their offices and asked to speak to the victim.
“She was asked to wait in reception, however, Jeska walked into the open plan office and attacked the victim and stabbed him a number of times.”
“The former British champion fell-runner, from Machynlleth, Powys, Mid Wales, used two 12cm and 13cm kitchen knives in the attack with a third blade – a bread knife – stashed in her bag.
She viciously stabbed Mr Knibbs in the head and neck, Birmingham Crown Court heard.
Mr Knibbs, now the head of human resources and welfare at British Athletics after a stellar rugby playing career, suffered life-threatening injuries.
He famously turned down the chance to go on tour with England to South Africa in 1984 because he opposed apartheid.
Jeska, who the court heard is autistic, lashed out at two other top UK Athletics officials, accountant Tim Begley and Kevan Taylor, when they tried to stop her.
The Daily Mail goes on to report that:
“Jeska is listed as being a member of the Yorkshire-based Todmorden Harriers Running Club on the group’s website. She was also a second-claim member for Aberystwyth AC.
According to the site, she was the women’s English Fell Running Champion for three consecutive years between 2010-2012 and won the British Championship in 2012.”
Both the BBC and The Guardian refused to report on Jeska’s transgender status and his motive for the attack, and misreported him as being a female defendant whose motive was unknown.
Jeska will be sentenced on November 15.
September 21, 2016
The Department of Housing and Urban Development joined other Obama agencies Tuesday in ruling that ‘Gender Identity’ determines reproductive biology and overrides Title IX sex-based protections for women and girls in homeless shelters. The department defines Gender Identity as “the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth and regardless of the person’s perceived gender identity.” [p70]
The ruling allows any male to access female sleeping quarters, showers, and restrooms on the basis of self-declared ‘Gender Identity’. Questioning such a declaration on any basis is ruled as discriminatory and women’s rational need for privacy and safety from male violence is dismissed as “unsubstantiated fears” [p52].
The rule explicitly forbids requesting evidence of a “transition”, including duration, consistency, or sincerity of belief in declared ‘Gender Identity’. There is no provision to address men who may assert ‘Gender Identity’ for an improper purpose:
“HUD also revises paragraph (b) to add a provision that the policies and procedures must ensure that individuals are not subjected to intrusive questioning or asked to provide anatomical information or documentary, physical, or medical evidence of the individual’s gender identity.”[p13]
HUD disregards with a handwave the rationale for protection of female privacy and safety against male violence behind the Congress’s Title IX provision for sex-segregation in areas of public nudity:
“Contrary to the public comment that suggests what Congress’s intent was in creating single-sex facilities, HUD does not opine on Congress’s intent behind permitting single-sex facilities, but does make clear in this rule that, for purposes of determining placement in a single-sex facility, placement should be made consistent with an individual’s gender identity. This rule does not attempt to interpret or define sex.” [p30]
Yet the HUD ruling does re-define legal sex -as a characteristic on par with sex-stereotypes of “appearance, behavior, expression”- falling under the newly invented federal category of “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 or identified in documents.” [p70]
The ruling itself re-defines ‘sex’ as a component of ‘Perceived Gender Identity’ but the agency also defines ‘Gender Identity’ as a “component of sex’ in its response to public comment:
“In response to the comment with regard to this rule’s impact on a “legal sex category,” this rule does not provide a definition of “woman” or “sex.” In this rule, HUD notes that gender identity—and whether a person identifies with their sex assigned at birth or not—is a component of sex.” [p45]
HUD cites the Title IX re-interpretation of other Obama appointed agencies (which call for the elimination of sex as a protected category) as precedent for Tuesday’s ruling, making no mention of the current legal challenges to this very interpretation by 23 states and various private litigants:
“Consistent with the approach taken by other Federal agencies, HUD has determined that the most appropriate way for shelter staff to determine an individual’s gender identity for purposes of a placement decision is to rely on the individual’s self-identification of gender identity.” [p39]
HUD cites various internet surveys as evidence that males with ‘Gender Identities’ are at greater risk of harassment and violence than women and girls. Therefore HUD rules that women and girls must be forced by the state to sacrifice their own safety and absorb the risk from males who prefer sleeping and bathing among women. HUD addresses the safety concerns of individuals with ‘Gender Identities’ extensively, including those who ‘identify as’ having no reproductive biology at all:
“In circumstances where an individual does not identify as male or female and such information is relevant to placement and accommodation, the individual should be asked the gender with which the individual most closely identifies. In these circumstances, the individual is in the best position to specify the more appropriate gender-based placement as well as the placement that is most likely to be the safest for the individual—either placement with males or placement with females.” [p48]
Yet HUD completely disregards voluminous FBI, CDC, and other forensic documentation of epidemic sex-based violence against women committed by males as “beyond the scope” of the ruling, wrapping up their dismissal with a version of the classic ‘but women rape too!’:
“HUD’s rule requires that individuals be accommodated in accordance with their gender identity. It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, as discussed earlier, this final rule requires that providers must take nondiscriminatory steps that may be necessary and appropriate to address privacy concerns raised by all residents or occupants. HUD notes that both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and other VAWA crimes include persons who are transgender or gender nonconforming individuals and persons who are not”. [p58]
HUD fully expects violence, (which it calls “physical harassment”) to occur between homeless women and the males placed in female sleeping and bathing areas as a result of this ruling:
“If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants. HUD recognizes that, even then, conflicts may persist and complaints may escalate to verbal or physical harassment. In these situations, providers should have policies and procedures in place to support residents and staff in addressing and resolving conflicts that escalate to harassment.”[p17]
Strangely, although statistics show that female stranger violence against males is an infinitesimal probability compared to the reverse, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is, yet again, solely concerned with the former- the issue of women’s protection from male violence being “beyond the scope” of the Obama administration’s mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women.
Read the full HUD decision here:
September 17, 2016
Meet Julia Cushion, your new Westminster UK ‘Outreach and Engagement Officer’ for Parliament’s Department of Information. She can’t tell you what she thinks about politics, except that she thinks Lesbians and Feminists are “awful people” for wanting representation in policy that effects us. Good Luck Westminster lesbians and feminists!
Your ‘Outreach and Engagement Officer’ thinks you – and every feminist ally with concerns about over-broad “Gender Identity” statutes, the legal codification of sex stereotypes, the elimination of lesbian rights to lesbian spaces, and the medicalization of gender non-compliance in children (among other issues) are “awful people”. She wants you to know it so I’m reblogging her post here. Do make a note of it.
Link to events she describes in her post : http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-people-uk-government/#gs.hUn59Ik
*UPDATE- Gosh. Officer Cushion appears to have taken her post offline.
I find this interesting. In her post of September 2, Ms. Julia Cushion describes her new position as Outreach and Engagement Officer for Westminster. She explains that a condition of her Parliamentary service is that she must remain apolitical. See screencap here:
Yet on September 17, she writes a post describing the brilliant lesbian and Women’s Rights activists, authors, and educators who spoke at the Women’s Equality forum, including the renowned Lesbian Feminist author and professor Sheila Jeffreys, as “awful people” because Ms. Julia Cushion is against lesbian and women’s rights to representation.
Not only are lesbian and feminist politics “awful” to Ms. Cushion, but we are “awful people” entirely. See Julia Cushion’s relevant statements here:
Now, I’m not going to call Julia Cushion an “awful person” for sharing her homophobic and misogynist views. Clearly she is a completely uninformed about the issues as she admits herself. She knows nothing about transgender people, lesbians or feminism.
That someone so completely clueless might lunge clumsily and publicly in defense of a politics they’ve never deeply considered is not unique.
What I find interesting is that Ms. Cushion believes that lesbian and feminist concerns are so maligned that publicly bashing lesbians and feminists as “awful people” is a position safe to take- even for an individual whose government position is conditioned on impartiality. The hatred of lesbians and feminists expressed by Ms. Cushion- not just politically, but as people, is remarkable.
September 14, 2016
For the last six years London’s Science Museum has been indoctrinating children into the false pseudoscience of “Brain Sex” via an exhibit designed by transgender activists called “Boy or Girl?” The exhibit was dually funded by the UK government and drug company GlaxoSmithKlein.
According to the website of transgender lobbying youth group Gendered Intelligence the creation of the exhibit was overseen by Dr. Jay Stewart, whose doctorate was awarded in art by Goldsmiths College. Stewart is a testosterone-injecting woman who identifies as transgender.
From the Gendered Intelligence website:
“Dr. Jay Stewart
Jay is co-founder of Gendered Intelligence and chairs the Board of Directors. Jay carries out and oversees the main activities that take place across the organisation. Recently Jay has lead on the projects: ‘What makes your gender? Hacking into the Science Museum’ – a £10,000 project funded by Heritage Lottery Fund with the Science Museum, London – and ‘GI’s Anatomy: a life drawing project for trans and intersex people’ – a £30,000 project funded by the Welcome Trust carried out in collaboration with Central School of Speech & Drama, London Drawing and the Gender Identity Development Service, Tavistock Clinic, NHS Trust. Jay also delivers much of the youth group sessions and is a mentor.”
The ‘Boy or Girl?’ exhibit at the Science Museum taught visitors falsehoods about the science behind sex-stereotypes, claiming traditions of ‘gender’ which privilege males and subordinate females through social rituals of male domination and female submission are ‘hard wired’ in the brain. The museum also presented displays of pharmacology and sex-based prosthetics (breast implants, silicone penises) to children as examples of medical interventions to help them conform to stereotypes of gender.
Included in the exhibit is a ghastly ‘test’ that children can take to determine if they have ‘Pink’ female brains or ‘Blue’ male brains. You can take the test here:
Feminists have criticized the display for years but recent complaints from the feminist parent’s groups FourthWaveNow and TransgenderTrend have succeeded in raising public awareness widely on the issue.
Today the ScienceMuseum announced it would finally take steps to modify the anti-scientific and offensive exhibit.
Excerpted from the ScienceMuseum blog post “A question of sex, gender and how to keep museums up to date” By Alex Tyrrell | 14 September 2016:
“In the past week many of these questions and challenges have been playing on my mind, following a lively discussion on social media about an exhibit on the science of sex and gender in our Who Am I? gallery, which explores the wealth of scientific ideas that inform our understanding of human identity.
I worked on Who Am I? when it was last refreshed back in 2010 and the aim at the time was to present the cutting-edge scientific knowledge of the day on what makes us us, me me and you you. I headed up a team of researchers (we call them Content Developers) who spent many months scouring scientific journals and interviewing countless inspiring researchers from around the world. We also worked with a vast network of eminent geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists and other experts to create the gallery.
Scientific accuracy is vital to the Museum – our reputation depends on it – and we put in place rigorous processes to ensure we get things right, from expert advisory boards who look at the broad messages in an exhibition, to subject specialists who are invited to scrutinise every word we write.
It is now six years since Who am I? was updated – and much of the research featured in the gallery is a decade older. The exhibit in the gallery that has recently received attention on Twitter is titled Boy or Girl? It features stories, objects and research including studies into sexual preference and behaviour, tests to see the sex of an unborn baby, and a section looking at gender identity and the evidence for biological differences between the sexes.
The thinking behind Who am I? – and the sex and gender display in particular – was to communicate the latest research clearly and accurately, but we also believe that featuring contributions from other viewpoints and disciplines is essential when examining a question as complex and profoundly personal as ‘who am I?’.
With this in mind, we chose to include work from numerous artists (including, most famously, Antony Gormley’s Iron Baby) and stories from a range of people who are personally involved in the issues covered. In the sections of Who am I? that examine gender and sex, for instance, we collaborated with a transgender person – ‘Alex’ – whose experiences feature in one of the gallery exhibits.
Some of the comments we have received question the accuracy of the science in the exhibition – and the words and images we chose to explain it. Words such as ‘hardwired’, for instance, which feature on several labels, are today especially and understandably controversial when used in combination with ideas like gender.
Other concerns have been raised about an interactive game in the gallery that explores the male and female brain. Specifically, the game presents studies scientists have carried out to investigate if there are small differences on average in the way that men and women complete certain tasks, largely based around the recognition of abstract shapes and patterns. This game – which dates back 16 years to the gallery’s inception – was designed to be tongue in cheek and provocative (think silly voices akin to a Pathé news reel) and visitors are invited to take some of the real tests that scientists used, scoring male or female ‘brain points’ on a ‘sex-o-meter’ that is coloured pink and blue.
As a Museum we always attempt to present ideas in different ways – labels and objects but also games, animations and ‘interactives’ – and in this case the artistic licence taken in the year 2000 to create a provocative exhibit appears outdated. Certainly from preliminary work looking at the latest scientific evidence, the ideas presented are now in question.
Social attitudes also change. We have received responses from visitors who are concerned about how we feature transgender issues, which are now very much more in the public consciousness than they were back in 2010, let alone the year 2000.
The idea of Who am I? was always to raise questions. We present issues in ways that provoke debate, however we would never want to compromise the accuracy of the content on display.
Of course we would like to keep all of our galleries and exhibitions up-to-date, but with many thousands of objects on show and finite resources and time this is not always possible.
However, with an issue of such scientific and cultural importance as this we have decided it is essential that we look again at the exhibit. We are now talking to leading experts in neuroscience and clinical psychology to consider whether the latest scientific evidence warrants making changes to our exhibit.
Science moves fast, and while it isn’t always possible for us to keep up, on some issues it is essential that we quicken our pace to make sure we haven’t been left behind.
Watch this space for further details.”
Read the full post here:
[Actual screencap of Science Museum test administered to youth]
Researcher: Transgender children allow non-traditional parents to perform stereotypical parenting roles
September 8, 2016
“Universal Mother” [artist unknown]
The American Sociological Association invited University of California at Davis Sociology student Kristi Hilton Ryan to present the results of an unpublished paper concerning 36 subjects at their 2016 annual meeting.
Why such a high honor for a student study of a tiny number of subjects? Popularity of the topic: family dynamics of children being diagnosed as ‘transgender’.
Hilton Ryan is a heterosexual female whose only connection with members of the LGBT is one of academic curiosity. However, rather than being an objective observer, Hilton Ryan, who has never engaged with the century plus published female-authored analysis of gender (see: feminism; women’s liberation) has stated for the record that she believes “gender”- the ritualized socially mandated roles of male domination and female subordination- should be “celebrated”.
Single parents were excluded from Hilton Ryan’s study. The co-parents of the 36 subjects were “predominantly white, middle class, geographically diverse.” Most were parents of children between the ages of 5-9 who identify their children as transgender and whose children have already “socially transitioned”, meaning they have adopted opposite sex stereotypes (name changes, clothing) and either demand a right to compel bystanders to pretend that their children are the opposite sex and/or take steps to support their child in keeping their true sex a secret (changing schools, secrecy, etc.)
Although the study is unpublished, a press release and interviews outline some of Hilton Ryan’s findings:
The parents in her study were predominantly white, middle class, and residents of the United States.
The majority of parents self identify as liberals or progressives.
Parents of transgender children were more likely than the general population to be gay, lesbian or bisexual (19%).
Prior to diagnosis as transgender “Nearly all” parents believed their children were exhibiting pre-homosexual behaviors and would develop into gay adults.
Parents tried to force their children to stop gender nonconforming behaviors such as choosing non-stereotypical toys or clothes prior to diagnosing them as transgender.
Parents of transgender children diagnosed their male children earlier: between the ages of 3-5 for males and females between 9-14.
“All” male children in the study were diagnosed as transgender by their parents before the age of five and “most” before the age of three.
“Most” female children were identified by their parents as transgender after the onset of puberty.
Parents of female children were more immediate “instant adopters” of a transgender diagnosis.
No parents in the study used the descriptors “genderqueer” or “nonbinary” or “gender fluid” to describe their child.
Mothers “overwhelmingly” take the lead in diagnosing their children as transgender.
Mothers of transgender children take on the majority of parenting responsibilities.
The majority of heterosexual mothers of transgender children are more professionally qualified than their husbands.
51% of heterosexual mothers of transgender children have advanced education that vastly exceeds their husbands.
From Diana Tourjee’s Vice.com piece titled: “How the Mother’s of Transgender Children Are Changing The World” –
“According to Ryan’s study, mothers usually take on the majority of parenting responsibilities despite being more professionally qualified than their husbands. Fifty-one percent of heterosexual mothers in Ryan’s study have “a higher level of education than their partners, with discrepancies as wide as mothers holding professional or doctoral degrees while their husband’s hold associates degrees or less,” the study reads. Nonetheless, it was the mothers in Ryan’s study that gave up their jobs in order to raise the kids and “bear the brunt of the childcare labor, and by extension the brunt of the care related to their child’s gender diversity.” One working mother told Ryan she handled more than 90 percent of her trans child’s needs, even though the kid’s father is retired.”
Transgender mother blogger “Raising Jeremy” reflected on the exalted status of traditional motherhood that she experiences in her role as parent of a transgender child in her latest post addressing a new phenomenon: women falsely identifying themselves as parents of transgender children in order to join and participate in their private groups.
“I’ve been pondering what would motivate someone to pose as a parent of a transgender child”, she writes in “Do You Want To Be Me?”:
“From the outside looking in, for the person who is not going through what we are going through, I guess we look inspirational. I’ve realised it’s because we are.”
“You accepted your child, and there are days that are hard and shitty and yet you still turn up. You turn up because one of the miracles in your family needs you. You turn up because your child’s smile is precious and seeing it is its own reward. You turn up because their happiness is your breath. You are the tireless voice even when you are so very tired. You are a million conversations with strangers to demystify being transgender / gender diverse. You are signatures on petitions to have discriminatory laws overturned from bathroom bills to access to cross hormone treatment. You are strong voices howling into the maelstrom of life that our children are valid, wonderful and miraculous, look them in the eye and keep trying to deny our truth.”
“We are thousands of stories of ordinary people on an extraordinary parenting journey. What binds us is that we are testament to the power of love.”
Hilton Ryan’s finding that mothers of transgender children are using their children to express and perform exalted female gender stereotypes of caregiving and motherhood is not unique. “Transgender” has always been used as a foil for bystanders and an opportunity to anxiously perform overt ritualized behaviors of male domination and female subordination under the guise of being “progressive”.
Witness mainstream gay male culture’s sexism, embrace of masculinity, rejection of gender nonconforming males and financing of the transgender child movement. Witness the lesbian embrasure of a soccer mom “baby boom” and rejection of feminism and gender noncompliant women. Witness liberal men passionately “white knighting” to protect the safety and dignity of the “ladies” who are male- in stark contrast to any such engagement ever offered in defense of the precarious actual rights of actual females. Witness liberal women abdicating legal protections for women in favor of protecting the feelings of men.
Transgender is an opportunity for everyone to nostalgically embrace, perform, and enforce sex-based archetypes, shrilly, on the eve of their -hopefully inevitable- collapse.