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.
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.
September 17, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.