This is Transphobic.

March 16, 2015

Transphobia and self-hatred from the 'Trans Lives Matter' campaign

Transphobia and self-hatred from the ‘Trans Lives Matter’ campaign

Transwomen are men who have every right to use male facilities. There is nothing “wrong” with feminized men using the appropriate male restroom.

 

 

Woman frightened by man in women's locker room

Woman frightened by man in women’s locker room

A woman in Midlands, Michigan was banned from the Planet Fitness gym and had her membership revoked after she complained of being frightened by a man in the women’s locker room.

Yvette Cormier told news channel WNEMTV5 that she supports LGBT people but that the man in the locker room gave no indication whatsoever of being a transgender person. “This is very unprofessional. It’s very scary”, she said. “I was stunned and shocked. He totally looked like a man. He was not dressed like a woman at all.”

She reported him to Planet Fitness management. “They proceeded to tell me that they have to embrace whatever sex somebody thinks they are.” She was told by management that Planet Fitness policy allows any male who “self-reports” an internal “female identity” the right to access areas of public nudity which are sex-segregated for the privacy and protection of women and girls, and that no attempt would be made by management to screen for males who might choose to access such spaces for improper purposes. Their policy states: “…members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity.” [Italics by me-GM].

The male individual involved in the incident has not been publicly identified.

Days after the incident a Planet Fitness corporate representative contacted Cormier and informed her they had learned that she was discussing the incident with other women in the locker room, and that women expressing “judgement” about their safety and privacy in regard to sharing a locker room with men was a violation of the company’s “no judgement” for women policy.

Transgender activists hailed the outcome as a victory for the male rights of “transwomen”, who seek the elimination of the human rights of privacy, public safety and free speech of actual female persons- those formerly known as “women”. (Per the transgender male rights movement, women are no longer permitted to refer to themselves by the word “women” without a qualifier, in order to equalize the rights of 0.2% of the male population’s “gender feelings”  with the rights of the entire female 51% of the Earth’s population).

In a follow-up, news station WNEMTV5 apologizes to the public for referring to the man as “male” in the earlier report; According to the transgender rights movement (and the news professionals at WNEM!), a man’s objective biological sex is whatever he claims “to feel it to be” at any particular moment.

Yvette Cormier accepts that Planet Fitness has the right as a private business to allow males into women’s areas of nudity at their gym, whether the men “feel female” at the moment or not. But she feels women have the right to be warned of the unisex policy before the business forces women without consent into close contact with males in public locker rooms. “They should point that out before you sign up to join their gym, or post it on the front of the bathroom door” she told WNEM.

Women in Michigan could lobby for a state law to that effect. Currently Florida is considering just such a statute. Florida Bill HB 583 states, in part, that such unisex facilities must be “conspicuously designated” as such. 

*UPDATE* The man involved in this incident has come forward. See updates in comments here: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/planet-fitness-revokes-membership-of-woman-who-reported-a-man-in-the-womens-locker-room-citing-no-judgement-zone-policy/#comment-49710

locker_room.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox

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.

DownloadedFile

quill-pen-and-ink-well-with-paper-scroll_art

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”

fam

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’ . . .)

Read the rest of this entry »

SCIENCE!

November 8, 2013

1380553_10103937554441214_557615254_n

.

Here is an example of this “science” at work:

http://lilydoessf.tumblr.com/post/66023565311/transgender-discrimination-at-holy-cow-on-folsom

Alberto Robledo with tattoos covered

25 year old Lewiston Idaho resident Alberto Robledo was served trespassing papers in April for repeatedly using a supermarket restroom designated for women. The store received multiple complaints from female customers who were frightened by the man using the stall next to them. They knew he was a man because he faced the toilet standing up and urinated from his penis.

The women were afraid, if it needs stating, because females are subject to the constant threat of violent and sexualized predation by males for their entire lives. They are particularly vulnerable in areas of public nudity or partial nudity such as restrooms. Public areas where women disrobe, or partially disrobe, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital rooms, jail cells, etc. are sex-segregated for the sole purpose of limiting sexual violence against females by males.

Hearing a man voiding in the next stall was alarming to female patrons because they were unexpectedly and suddenly forced to be partially disrobed and vulnerable in the presence of a man without their consent in an area specifically designated to prevent that very thing from occurring. They also logically surmised that the particular man in question was either the sort of individual who willfully chooses to violate female protective space (therefore making him more likely to be the type of male who perpetuates sexual violence against women) or a male exhibiting the mental incapacity to apprehend social boundaries relative to female vulnerability to male sexual violence (therefore making him more likely to be capable of sexual violence against women).

Anyway you look at it, Alberto displayed behavior of the type exhibited by males who are at high risk of committing violence against women, and the women reported his alarming behavior to store security.

From the April NewYorkDailyNews report:

“A transgender woman whose use of a women’s restroom in an Idaho grocery store reportedly upset other customers has been cited for trespassing and banned from the store for a year, police said on Friday.

 A Rosauers supermarket in Lewiston asked police to charge 25-year-old Ally Robledo, who was born male but identifies as female, with the misdemeanor trespass charge on Monday, Lewiston Police Captain Roger Lanier said.

 “The store security officer said he had been dealing with a problem over a couple days with the person going into the women’s restroom and urinating while standing up,” Lanier said.

 He added that the store had reported that Robledo’s use of the restroom made other female customers “very uncomfortable.”

 Robledo said she was being discriminated against.

 “I’m a female trapped in a man’s body. It’s natural for me to go to the ladies’ room. Getting the no trespassing order for a public restroom was really painful,” she said.”

Alberto explained to police who questioned him and his boyfriend (who was waiting outside the supermarket) that he believed himself, although male, to understand the experience of being female (an assertion belied by his inability to relate to the rational, everyday female concerns about male sexual predation and violence). Further, he declared that his internal subjective beliefs about females should override the legal right of women to maintain boundaries in sex-segregated areas of public nudity. He claimed that the women he frightened were legally discriminating against his feelings and personal beliefs about women.

LGBT advocacy groups funded by males -such as GLAAD- agreed with Alberto. They lobbied on his behalf to eliminate protections for females against male predation in areas of public nudity.  They prioritized Alberto’s expression of his feelings about women (his male conception of what it feels to be female) over harm reduction measures (such as sex-segregated areas of public nudity) designed to stem the cross-generational international global epidemic of sexualized male violence against females.  GLAAD agreed that protecting women against male violence legally discriminates against male feelings.

Transgender males (“transwomen”) are male. They commit violence against females at  the same epidemic rate as other males. Transgender rates of male violence and sexualized violence against females does not decrease after “sex-change”, even among male transgenders who are chemically or surgically castrated.

At least one study- of the San Franciso transgender population- alleges that criminality among male transgenders is higher than any other social demographic, bar none. Male “transwomen” murder more female victims than all the combined male victims (some of whom were murdered by other “transwomen”) somberly commemorated by the candlelight vigils at the annual “Transgender Day of Remembrance”.

Our male “victim” of female harm reduction against male violence, Alberto, was charged this week with battery. He did it. He admits it. He blames the woman for his violence against her because his honor was offended. She correctly identified him as a homosexual male.

http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2013/09/2941_001.pdf

stop_violence_against_women

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 702 other followers