pool

A young man undressed twice last week in front of young girls in the women’s locker room at Seattle’s Evan’s Pool facility and police were not called due to confusion over Washington State’s new Gender Identity regulations. The rules allow any male to enter women and girl’s locker rooms, showers, restrooms, saunas, etc. by invoking his belief in “Gender Identity”, a psychological form of reproductive sex unrelated to actual biological sex. Males who enter such facilities without proclaiming a personal belief in psychological sex are subject to arrest under sex crime statutes.

The man in question twice reportedly entered the female changing facility and observed the women and girls in various stages of undress, and removed his own clothes in front of them.

From KIRO Seattle:

“Seattle Parks and Recreation has confirmed an adult male inappropriately used a female locker room at Evans Pool in Green Lake while a youth swim team used the facilities on Feb. 8

Was the individual a male inappropriately using the facilities or a transgender female well within her rights?

“This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was ‘identifying’ as a woman,” Seattle Parks and Recreation Communications Manager David Takami told me via email. “We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.”

At around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, an adult went into the locker room to change. Takami says that at “no time did he verbally ‘identify’ as female,” nor did he request to be treated as transgender.

At the time, a local youth swim team was using the facilities. Young girls and some of their parents “became alarmed” that the male was changing in the female locker room and alerted the front desk staff. Staff members then “asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room.”

He did not accept the offer.

After his swim, he “again entered the women’s locker room to change.” Front desk staff once again asked him to leave “and he eventually did.”

Perhaps complicating matters, a witness who contacted KIRO Radio indicated this male was wearing men’s clothing as he entered the locker room.

Takami maintains that the parks department wants everyone to feel comfortable. But if this individual was, in fact, transgender, was this situation handled correctly? And is it appropriate to call the individual a male?

If this isn’t a “transgender issue” why didn’t staffers call the police? Critics of the failed transgender bathroom bill indicate there are already rules to punish people who break the law.

According to the law: “If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person’s gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available.”

But Takami says everyone involved (the patrons complaining and the male individual) were offered a separate accommodation.

The law further states: “Any action taken against a person who is using a restroom or other gender-segregated facility, such as removing a person, should be taken due to that person’s actions or behavior while in the facility, and must be unrelated to gender expression or gender identity.”

There is no indication that this individual did anything inappropriate, if the person identifies as transgender. But Seattle Parks and Recreation did not believe he was transgender. So why didn’t they call the police?

“That was an option, but staff try to deal with issues immediately, and try not to call police as the first option,” Takami said.

This incident raises questions that go to the heart of the issue and controversy over gender-neutral bathroom protections. We’re told that the concern that a male using a female locker room is overblown and rarely happens. If you were to look into this incident, because police weren’t called, there’s no paper trail that the average person could discover indicating this issue happened. The only reason we’re aware of the incident is due to a KIRO Radio listener who spoke up. So it’s problematic for activists to claim these incidents don’t happen if police aren’t always being called.

Yet another concern is whether or not this was done by an activist to make a political point.

“In following guidelines laid out by the Washington Human Right Commission, the person did not exhibit a gender presentation or gender identity consistent with gender of the locker room as was asked to leave that locker room,” said Gunner Scott, transgender advocate and former LGBT Commission for the City of Seattle. “A concern I have is if this was a setup by opponents of LGBT equality to try to exploit the recent debate of basic rights of transgender youth, adults and families, as that tactic has been used by these opponents in different states.”

It’s a valid concern and one I fear will happen just to make a point. But that’s another reason parks and recreation failed by not calling the police to report the lawbreaker.

Here is Takami’s full statement to the Jason Rantz Show:

On Monday, Feb. 8, around 5:30 p.m., an individual, a young adult, came into the pool lobby, paid the fee for lap swim, and went into the woman’s locker room to change. At no time did he verbally “identify” as female. Staff didn’t see which locker room he entered as it was a busy time of day with a lot of swimmers coming and going. Previous to lap swim time at the pool was a local youth swim team practice. After lap swim was another children’s swim time.

Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff. In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women’s locker room and asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room. Other patrons were also offered the alternative of the family changing room. He eventually left the women’s locker room. After the lap swim, he again entered the women’s locker room to change. Front desk staff again asked him to leave and he eventually did.

This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was “identifying” as a woman. We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities.”

 

Seattle’s King5 News Station provides further details:

“As far as policy to protect everyone, Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami says they’re still working on the issue. Right now, there’s no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom.  Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.”

pool

Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

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).

Houston Press headline

Houston Press headline

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.

Gay Blogger Joe Jervis responds to woman who received rape threat from HERO supporter

Gay Blogger Joe Jervis on the woman who received alleged rape threat from HERO supporter

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”.

mara keisling HERO

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.

PFLAG HERO

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.

images

Benson Mugshot

Benson Mugshot

Total fucking skumbag baby raper Thomas Lee Benson claiming his “internal Jender identity” made him dress up like a woman and plonk himself into a hottub full of little girls in the women’s lockeroom, even though he is a designated predatory sex offender for raping elementary school girls, and forbidden to be near children. Claims his internal “female gender identity” made him do it. Says it’s his right to be around naked little girls- his preferred victims- cause his Gender Identity Rights say so!

There’s a puke inducing extended interview with the babygirl rapist at the bottom of this link, if you have the stomach for it.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/132679743.html

Try this link if you want to see Trans peeps defending him in the comments. Even more puke inducing.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/10/cross-dressing_sex_predator_se.html

*Urrp*

Eww the rapist pedophile goes on in the interview about how he trolls Lesbian bars because he’s obsessed with having sex with women who don’t want to have sex with him. He wants to have sex with Lesbians who don’t know he is male. Guess he trolls elementary school girls for rape and switches it up with targeting some Lesbians.

I won’t say what I hope happens to him, except that there’s no coming back from it. From my mouth to god’s ears.

Texas Man Marries Woman

October 17, 2011

Not much of a headline is it? A man in Texas, once divorced, the father of a 17 year old girl, takes a new wife. Rumor has it he has impregnated her and they are starting a new family. Several news stories have been published about the marriage, but none of them identify the wife by name. But they do mention the husband, a successful IT software executive that markets technology to the defense industry. His name is Meghan Stabler, and he is the only transgender board member of the allegedly largest LGBT organization in the U.S. : The Human Rights Campaign.

Proud Moob Owner Mr. Meghan Stabler

Meghan is a self-described “Alpha Male” with strong genderist beliefs from a young age:

“Simply put, my emotional and psychological gender was not in alignment with my genetic, physiological sex. This is not an acquired condition; rather, it is an intrinsic part, a lifelong aspect of my being, something that I, and many others are born with.”

Some quotes where he describes his sex-role discomfort:

“I could have gotten an Oscar for my acting.  I tried to do that ‘let’s go play golf, have a cigar, and drink a lot of beer’ stuff and hated it. You can’t say it out loud that it is revolting because you are trying to be one of the guys.”

“9/11 happened in 2001. People that I’d known either lost their lives or families were impacted.  It is when I realized that many people didn’t get a chance to say goodbye or to say they truth about their lives.  And I felt because I had been successful in a business career, I wanted to feel comfortable as to who I was and not live a lie.”

““Transitioning is not the same as just saying ‘I’m gay or I’m lesbian’ because people don’t have to out themselves if they don’t want to. When you transition, it a physical transformation that people will absolutely begin to see over a period of time.  The risk/stakes of this game are extremely high.”

 “I had to figure out how could deal with [trans-itioning] but keep the career that I love..”

Mr Stabler joined the HRC board in 2008 to fight for the desires of transgenders: to force the public at large to act as if social sex roles (“Gender”) are legally tied to one’s reproductive sex. In other words, in his view- which he sought to enshrine into law against the wishes of feminists worldwide- sex role stereotypes must be legally enforced by

1.) legally establishing that sex roles, long disputed by women as being artificial and culturally imposed traditions designed to enforce second-class status on the female sex class, are innate. And

2.) That such sex role stereotypes (“gender”) require legal enforcement and protections to prevent erosion by gender-nonbelievers. And

3.) That the public at large must be legally compelled to act as if they believe in the supposedly innate nature of sex-roles, even if they do not believe.

4.) That any stated or acted upon disbelief in sex-roles (gender) by the public at large should be criminalized.

5.) That protections against sex discrimination should be erased and the legal category “sex” be replaced with sex-role, or “Gender”, an internal, invisible, subjective and unquantifiable belief.

6.) That legal sex be replaced with sex-role categories retroactively on historical documents of all types, from public news reports to birth certificates.

7.) That all the above should be moot in cases where a transgender decides that gender isn’t real, but only for them. In other words, that transgenders, unlike any other citizens, have the unique right to skirt the very same now codified and protected legal status of “gender” that they have themselves lobbied for. It’s like a “special snowflake” exemption reserved only for them. It says (paraphrasing): “I am a male who demands to be deemed legally female, and I demand that all females lose all legal rights related to sex, in order to protect my right to have my belief in the immutability of sex-roles legally affirmed.”

In ENDA testimony before the Texas legislature on March 30, 2011 Mr Stabler testified that he was now “labeled as a Lesbian” as so many heterosexual male transgenders claim. But last week he did something no Lesbian in the state of Texas has ever been able to do (besides impregnating women): He married his wife. That’s right! He invoked the special snowflake exemption listed as #7 above. He re-claimed the mantle of his male privilege and retracted his claims of being female and a “Lesbian” and had him a good old-fashioned heterosexual wedding.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2011/10/13/hrc-trans-board-member-marries-as-sex-opposite-of-post-op-gender/

This points out the ridiculousness of not only the “special snowflake exemption”, but the whole premise of his entire Genderist legal platform.

If male “Lesbians” can opt to claim male privilege and heterosexual privilege, what special protections does their Genderism need exactly?

Why do people who have more privileges than any person born female (not only from the moment of birth, but for their entire lives, regardless of any arbitrary and fluctuating  Genderist “trans-ition”) need protections from the legal category of female sex? Why do female rights need to be eliminated, indeed even the legal classification of sex need to be eliminated to support the internal, personal, self-reported, invisible, changeable, unquantifiable sex-role beliefs of Genderists?

Males already have the legal right under title VII to be free from discrimination based on non-compliance with traditional sex-role stereotypes. We don’t need to eliminate the legal category of sex to protect the rights of individual’s private gender  beliefs and fantasies.

[all bolding mine-GM]

Interesting little item out of Colorado over the weekend. News station KRDO Channel 13 reports that a woman was terrified by a man in the women’s restroom of a local shopping mall. She fled the scene and reported the incident to mall security to investigate. She was told that because of the 2008 “Gender Identity Protections” law passed in Colorado, the mall was unable to even question –much less report to police- any males who are trespassing in formerly sex-segregated women’s bathrooms. The reason given was that any males who like hanging out in women’s restrooms “might” claim internal “gender identities”, which presumably could result in mall security being sued for questioning such a man.

From the article:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — One woman says she had a double scare at the Chapel Hills Mall bathroom on Wednesday. It was in the women’s facility near the Children’s Place.

 She says a man was in the bathroom. She rushed to get help from mall security. The man was gone when they got the restroom. The woman also says she was told by security that they couldn’t restrain him unless he was doing something criminal. She says security told her it was because of a 2008 Colorado law.

 Chapel Hills Mall wouldn’t directly confirm or comment on the complaint. They did send this statement on the law and how they follow it to the letter.

 It states: “Chapel Hills Mall and their national security provider comply with all federal, state and local laws including the Public Accommodations Anti-Discrimination law amendments that became effective May 29, 2008. As will all public accommodations, which is defined as any place of business that offers sales or services of any kind to the public, Chapel Hills Mall is required to allow entry and services to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or transgender status. As outlined in the FAQ document produced by the State of Colorado for this law, individuals have the legal right to use gender-segregated services, such as public restrooms, appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth, without being harassed or questioned.

[bolding mine-GM]

Link with video:

http://www.krdo.com/news/29488435/detail.html

Speaking of trans activists claiming this never happens, those who click the link will see not one but two comments from self-proclaimed “woman with a penis”:  trans and anti-female-rights activist Autumn Sandeen, who chides the news organization for reporting something which “isn’t newsworthy”. He then goes so far as to accuse news station KRDO of “manufacturing news”, presumably because reporting news of interest to females makes it “un-newsworthy”. We can see in action the attempt by national trans activists to silence and suppress reportage of such incidents which are caused by “Gender Identity” laws erasing all rights of females to privacy from the male gaze in sex-segregated areas such as restrooms.

Trans activists claim that it is unlikely that predators will lie about an internal “Gender Identity” to gain access to female spaces (even though they make up all sorts of lies to do so). But as this article shows, in areas where Gender Identity laws erase female rights, trespassing males are not even being questioned, due to fears of “Internal Gender Identity”  lawsuits- even though we know without a doubt that predators are targeting women in such spaces.