prison bars

Testimony admitted by the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry in the UK Parliament took a surprise turn when members sounded the alarm over what they warned is an “ever increasing tide” of transwoman criminal sex offenders. They outline how sex-offending transwomen whom they describe as “pretend transsexuals” adopt a transgender identity for various nefarious purposes, often involving increased access to vulnerable women and child victims.

Description of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, from the August 20, 2015 testimony to Parliament [PDF] [all bolding in this post by me-GM]:

The Association numbers over a hundred members and comprises the overwhelming majority of all clinicians working in every Gender Identity Clinic in the British Isles. The membership is drawn from all the involved disciplines and includes Speech Therapists, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Surgeons, Psychosexual Counsellors, Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Endocrinologists, General Practitioners and Social Workers.

From the testimony:

The criminal justice system merits quite a bit of thinking about.

On the one hand, many of us can remember patients who were charged with crimes, convicted and who ended up on the sex offenders register when we thought that the same thing wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t a trans person. A good example would be the transwoman charged with sexual assault after some brief fellatio with two males who were two and three years younger than her own age at the time (she was eighteen). They were visitors to the area and boasted to their cousin of their recent sexual encounter. The cousin, enlightening them as to the nature of the person they had had a sexual encounter with, caused them to feel embarrassed. One thing led to another and the patient was charged with sexual assault. Given that she was in a kneeling position at the time and that it would have been perfectly possible for either one of the males concerned to run away this seemed a bit implausible. In the end, she was convicted of being reckless as regard to age. This does place her on the sex offenders register, though. One suspects that she would never have been charged at all if she had been a born female.

The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard. I am sure that the Governor concerned would be happy to talk about this.

[sic]

To recap the points made in that second paragraph:

There is an “ever increasing tide” of incarcerated transwomen accessing transgender care services.

These transwomen are overwhelmingly convicted of “serious sexual offenses”, facing “long or indeterminate” sentences.

These transwomen convicted of serious sexual offences “vastly outnumber” transgender prisoners convicted for ordinary crimes.

Transgender care providers have identified several “improper purposes” utilized by the vast majority of incarcerated transwomen seeking transgender care.

These are identified as follows:

  1. Access to trips out of prison
  2. Sexual access to vulnerable incarcerated females
  3. Early parole due to parole board’s false belief that transwomen are less dangerous than other men.
  4. False belief that transgender medical treatments will decrease their future impulses to commit criminal sexual offenses.
  5. Desire for special status within prison system.
  6. Desire for protected status within prison system.
  7. Enhanced ability to commit future serious sexual offenses against women and/or children while disguised as women.

The Parliamentary testimony of the Association of Gender Identity Specialists goes on to complain that “Informed Consent” models of transgender care, where adopted, force clinicians to knowingly facilitate criminal sex offenses against women and children through the administration of transgender medicine.

That testimony:

There has been much talk recently of an “informed consent” approach being adopted.

The difficulty is that this phrase is much used in medical practice at the same two word phrase holds a wholly different meaning in the context being suggested. In routine medical practice in this and other countries the phrase “informed consent” means that patients can only be felt to have consented to any medical procedure if they have been fully informed, and understood, the likely consequences, both positive and negative, of the treatment being suggested, advised of alternative treatments that might be available, (including no treatment at all) and the likely positive and negative consequences of those alternatives. It is assumed in advance that the treatment suggestion is that being advanced by the practitioner concerned, the question being whether the patient is consenting to that treatment in a fully informed way.

The same phrase — “informed consent” — seems to the Association to have been borrowed by those suggesting very radical and negative shift in medical practice. It is suggested that provided patients are of sound mind (this amounts to the exclusion of serious mental illness) and understand the nature and consequences of what they request it should, essentially, be the role of the practitioner to fulfil that request. Crucially, there seems to be no recognition or acknowledgement of the view of the practitioner concerned about the merit of the suggested procedure. If actually implemented, this arrangement would leave medical practitioners in the position of having to make diagnoses they do not believe in, prescribe drugs they personally believe will not benefit the patient and undertake surgical procedures that they themselves believe will confer no benefit or cause harm. This is incompatible with medical practice, the first tenet of which is that one should “first, do no harm”.

In practical application, the worrying prisoner described in the paragraph above would be in a position to oblige medical practitioners to advance a plan the basis of which is the facilitation of subsequent sexual assault.

[sic]

Read the full testimony at the above PDF link.

prison

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

Graphic from Hungerford's website

Graphic from Hungerford’s website

Very Interesting. Lesbian Feminist attorney Elizabeth Hungerford -who authored the controversial “Letter to the UN Commission on Women on Gender Identity” with another lawyer now states that the original “is incomplete”.  A “doctor’s note” is insufficient to protect women from males who wield “Gender Identity” for an “Improper Purpose”. Read more at the link.

http://sexnotgender.com/2014/03/18/restatement-of-political-position-on-gender-identity-laws-in-the-usa/

 

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

Norman Ballhorn

Vancouver Washington resident Norman Ballhorn claims he has the right to be present where women change their tampons and perform other private restroom functions. The basis of his claim is his assertion that his sexual fetish: impersonating females and a lifetime of autogynephillic crossdressing – gives him the grounds to claim the legal status of “female” to bypass the rights of women in areas segregated by sex to protect them from just the sort of prurient objectification that is the basis of his claim.

This week Norman filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission against the tavern “Legend’s Food and Fun” for respecting the rights of female customers who protested his presence in the women’s restroom.

From a weekend article in the Vancouver WA Columbian:

“Vancouver resident Norma Ballhorn has worked hard to become a woman. She takes a concoction of hormones, changed her name from “Norman” to “Norma,” updated her driver’s license to reflect her female identity and wears clothing with feminine embellishments, such as butterfly sleeves. But Ballhorn, 56, still isn’t allowed to use the ladies room at three Clark County bars, she said.

“They’re using their right to refuse service to discriminate against me,” Ballhorn said.

She filed a complaint Monday against Legends Food & Fun with the State Human Rights Commission. She said she is considering filing complaints against Icehouse Bar & Grill and 3 Monkeys Pub on the same grounds.”

All three establishments have banned him from the women’s restroom after receiving multiple complaints from women customers. In at least one case he was removed by police officers after refusing to leave.

 “3 Monkey manager Joel Sweeten said he also asked Ballhorn not to use the ladies room because women customers told him it made them uncomfortable.

“My policy is, when ladies tell me they don’t want him in there, I don’t let him in,” Sweeten said. “My concern for the women’s safety is more important.””

Bar owners have requested that Norman continue to use the same restroom he has always used while patronizing their establishments: the one designated for males. They have stated that Norman is welcome to drink in their bars the way he always has: while using the restroom designated for male-bodied persons.

Does Washington State have the right to force women bar patrons to change their tampons in the presence of Norman Ballhorn?

Ballhorn, 56, a retired ironworker, claims to have changed his name from Norman to Norma after his wife of 32 years divorced him. He still signs his name as Norman Ballhorn on internet crossdressing sites though, as recently as a few weeks ago. He claims to have had the legal marker on his driver’s license legally changed to “female”. He claims to be taking estrogen pills prescribed by the Veterans Administration since last November. I say “he claims” because in the article he also claims to be a Vietnam Veteran although in the comments thread that follows he is forced to admit that he has never been to Vietnam. Which seems to call his honesty in general into question.

Still Norman, according to Norman

The “Makeovers By Epifany” Facebook site which does crossdresser “make-overs”  and whose tag-line is “Re-inventing Feminism From the Outside In”  featured Ballhorn’s make-over for a “Mizz Gay Pride” contest- and stated that Ballhorn has also been banned from both male and female public restrooms at the trailer park in which he resides. No explanation is given.

Norman is a participant in a group for sexual crossdressing fetishists called Rose City T-Girls (and the organizer of the Vancouver T-Girls). The group clearly identifies itself as a sexual fetishists group, not a “gender  identity” group: “Though we understand the T-Girl world is sexual in nature, we want to keep our postings tactful…” This group is for men who become sexually aroused by impersonating females. One of the activities Norman’s group does is take pictures of each other sitting on toilets in public restrooms and publishes them in youtube videos online for the enjoyment of other male sexual crossdressing and bathroom fetishists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STYjYGNrDGs&feature=channel&list=UL

Women DO NOT WANT the state to FORCE US to perform private bodily functions in the presence of male sexual fetishists like Howard Ballhorn. Women want to have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to PRIVACY FROM men like Norman Ballhorn. Women have a RIGHT to be free from male leers and objectification by creepy dudes when we pull down our pants to pee in a public restroom. That is why there are LAWS against men placing hidden cameras in our restrooms and men trespassing into our restrooms for IMPROPER PURPOSE. The fact that men like Norman are willing to wear a dress BECAUSE DOING SO SEXUALLY AROUSES THEM should not cause the state to OVERRIDE sex-based legal protections for females designed to help PROTECT US from MEN LIKE NORMAN.

Norman