Georgia ACLU Director resigns over the organization’s failure to balance transgender rights with women’s rights
May 30, 2016
Maya Dillard Smith, the head of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has stepped down, citing the legal non-profit’s deliberate disregard for the impact on the rights of women and girls caused by the “Gender Identity” platform of the transgender rights movement.
From the Atlanta Progressive News:
“In a statement she accused the ACLU of being “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights. In that way, it is a special interest organization not unlike the conservative right, which creates a hierarchy of rights based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.”
Dillard Smith argues that transgender rights have “intersectionality with other competing rights, particularly the implications for women’s rights.”
“I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults over six feet with deep voices entered,” she writes.
“My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer,” she said.
“Despite additional learning I still have to do, I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent,” she said.
“I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences,” she said.
“Thus, I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization,” she wrote.”
Maya Dillard Smith has a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard University and a Law degree from UC Hastings. She has worked for the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and also for the California Supreme Court. She served two terms as the senate-appointed head of the rules committee of the California Commission on Judicial Performance and was founding chair and elected chair of the City of Oakland’s Violence Prevention and Public Safety (Measure Y) Oversight Committee for five years.
She is now founding a new organization called ‘Finding Middle Ground’ which launched their new website ‘Finding Middle Ground: A safe space to dialogue about complex contemporary civil rights issues’ here: http://www.findingmiddleground.org/
The site launched with the above video and a contact/comment form.
Cheryl Courtney-Evans, the founder of Georgia transgender group TILTT (Transgender Individuals Living Their Truth) was quoted by the Atlanta Progressive News stating: “She did the right thing leaving the organization. If she couldn’t defend our rights any better than that, she deserves to leave – she doesn’t need to be in that position.”
He goes on to say “I never went in a men’s room since I’ve been living my truth. What am I doing in a men’s room looking as luscious as I am, putting myself in danger?” (It’s unclear if he used single-sex facilities designated for women during the period which he describes in interviews as detransitioning to attend college in ‘man mode’.)
In a reaction post on his website: [http://www.abitchforjustice.com/2016/05/and-she-stepped-down-for-what.html] he refers to the black female civil-rights attorney as “lazy”, “uneducated”, and “a bitch”. Courtney-Evans also claims that no man in history has ever harmed another human being while “dressed as women”, stating:
“Perhaps someone should hep this biotch to the fact that THERE HAVE BEEN NO DOCUMENTED INSTANCES OF TRANSGENDER MOLESTATION, ATTACK OR IMPROPER APPROACH IN ANY LADIES’ ROOM ANYWHERE (even though there have been NUMEROUS reports that have made the news regarding cis-identified men raping/attacking women/girls/boys in areas that they have been allowed in, and NONE OF THEM WERE DRESSED AS WOMEN when they did)!!!! I invite ANYONE to post a documented contradiction to this!!!”
He also states that gender neutral or family facilities that are not designated for single-sex use “mark” their users “as the Star Of David marked Jewish people in Nazi Germany”:
“And while you’re thinking you’re doing a positive thing by advocating for “alternative facilities” for trans*folks, think again…you’re creating even more numerous opportunities for trans*aggressions and bashing because you’re marking those individuals who use them every bit as effectively as the Star Of David marked Jewish people in Nazi Germany (THINK about it) when possible perpetrators see them go in.”
GenderTrender requested that Courtney-Evans clarify his statements. He did not respond in time for publication.
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
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.
Statistics Show the Difference in Rates of Violent Crimes Against Women Committed by ‘Transwomen’ Versus Non-Transgender Males
April 7, 2015
Surprise: There is zero statistical difference. The Transgender Law Center, HRC, GLAAD, ACLU, National Center for Transgender Equality, et al., have failed to cite a single study refuting the evidence that transgender males (“transwomen”) commit crimes against women and girls at exactly the same rate as any other males.
Several states and municipalities are considering bills designed to protect the rights of women to safety and privacy in areas of public nudity, such as restrooms and locker rooms, and areas where women are especially vulnerable to male violence, such as prisons, domestic violence shelters, mental health facilities, etc.
These bills are proposed in response to the elimination of sex-segregated spaces caused by “Gender Identity” lobbyists, who claim that biological sex is a “personal feeling” which lacks all description or objective characteristics and is unknowable to anyone but the person who “feels it”. This surprising legal attack on women’s rights has gained remarkable ground by piggy-backing onto the established political capital of the increasingly obsolete gay rights (or “LGBT”) organizations, while utilizing the financial capital of wealthy heterosexual closeted crossdressing males.
Many of these anti-women “Gender Identity” statutes were passed quickly and quietly in the guise of “equality” and “anti-discrimination” measures, and this strategy was by design:
“We have to acknowledge that we have largely achieved our successes by flying under the radar”, (then) Transgender Law Center Director Masen Davis stated eighteen months ago, “It is a secret at Transgender Law Center and I’ll ‘come out’ today. We do a lot, really quietly. We have made some of our biggest gains: that nobody has noticed. We are very quiet and thoughtful about what we do, because we want to make sure we have the win more than we want to have the publicity. And that has been largely effective. We’re not the only one, and many organizations have done this, and we’ve been able to get a lot done. But I need to tell you that the days of doing things quietly are coming to an end. It is time to get ready for a close-up, folks.”
That close-up, at least in regards to “Gender Identity” laws which eliminate protected spaces for women (removing the legally protected category of sex entirely and replacing it with men’s personal “feelings”) is now shining the spotlight, all right. On this guy, and this one, and this one, and these guys, and all of these.
The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women. [Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885]
Are all transwomen predators? Of course not: They are predators at exactly the same rates as any other males. Now that the public is starting to pay attention, that genie won’t be going back into the bottle anytime soon. What is once seen cannot be unseen. Especially when what is seen is some creepy pervert in the locker room waving his penis around in front of your kids.
Years ago, some prescient Lesbian Feminist legal strategists proposed a compromise: allowing men’s “Gender Identity” to override sex-based protections for women if those males had undergone some sort of medical or psychological treatment for “Gender Dysphoria”. They were attacked mercilessly by “Transwomen” for this suggestion. Their names were widely smeared, they were threatened with violence, stalked, their employers contacted, their home addresses published on-line and their children threatened with death. If any members of the transgender movement objected to the carnage, they did so silently.
And the suggestion that such males could perhaps be served by “Gender Neutral” areas has been widely rejected as well. “I will pee on the floor before I use a gender-neutral bathroom”, says TransSupport.Org founder Robin Lynn Frank.
The transgender movement’s strategy continues to be:
Deny, Deny, Deny.
Silence dissent through threats and violence.
Apply slurs to feminists who prioritize the needs of women over the gender-feels of males.
Censoring and No-Platforming feminist events.
“No True Transwoman” propaganda, which excludes offenders (on the basis that they don’t have “true feelings” of gender).
Etc. Etc. In short, the same “pre-spotlight” strategies that served them well in the past.
You can read a fascinating current discussion between the two sides of this dilemma, Feminists vs. Transgenderists, by clicking HERE. .
March 16, 2015
Transwomen are men who have every right to use male facilities. There is nothing “wrong” with feminized men using the appropriate male restroom.