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. 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.
Dr. Drew Show- Planet Fitness transgender locker room guy is a crossdresser who “gets a sexual high”
March 11, 2015
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.
Transgender activist and self-described “post-transsexual woman” Jillian Page, offers a cautionary tale in a series of columns addressing potential outcomes of sex-role noncompliant male teens using the same restrooms as other male teens. Page starts off warning parents that their sons may become homosexual:
“Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that MtF trans kids are prevented from using the girls’ facilities. Back-slapping victory for the anti-trans side, yes? Hmm . . . maybe not. You see, the trans kids still need to use the washroom. They’re certainly not going to pee and defecate in the school yard, right? They have to go somewhere. So, how will the anti-trans parents feel when their sons are sharing bathroom space with an MtF kid — a trans girl — who looks smashing in her short skirt, heels and blouse? (You see, just because the referendumites stopped the trans kids from using girls’ facilities doesn’t mean they will stop presenting in the clothing that matches their gender identity.) How will the parents feel if their sons fall for said trans girls? Yup. It’s bound to happen . . . right there in the school bathroom: a modern-day version of Romeo and Juliette with a transgender twist (see update at the top of this post). Not that there is anything wrong with a teenage boy falling for a teenage trans girl.
What probably wouldn’t happen, though, is the sons of those anti-trans parents committing acts of violence against the trans girls in the bathrooms, because school authorities would be very vigilant about that sort of thing. But the authorities certainly couldn’t — and wouldn’t — stop love in bloom . . .
Oh, the games people play . . .
Maybe the anti-trans folks should just let it be. They can’t stop transgenderism. Better to let the few trans kids out there use the facilities that match their gender identity.”
Jillian Page’s multi-post reverie culminates in his authoring a ONE ACT PLAY [this is not a joke!] titled:
“California Dreamin: Love, Transgender Style”
Characters: “a mother and father, 15-year-old son named Joseph and 14-year-old daughter named Jessica”
Setting: “It is set in the dining room of a modest, middle-class bungalow in Los Angeles, California. As the scene opens, mother, father and son are sitting at the dinner table, while daughter is standing by the china cabinet. A radio is playing oldies music in the background, at this moment, California Dreamin’ . . .)