Convicted serial killer Donald “Donna” Perry, now serving time in a women’s prison

On Friday, the Trump administration issued changes to controversial Obama-era guidance on placement of transgender prisoners.  Previous guidance prioritized the sexual rights of male offenders, allowing them to “identify as” female and be transferred to the female division, eliminating women’s longstanding international human rights to be incarcerated separately from males.

The new changes reestablish the sex-based rights of female prisoners to be housed in separate accommodations from males when confined by the state. Women’s basic rights to privacy from male inmates in vulnerable conditions of incarceration including sleeping, showering, and toileting were also acknowledged.

The Female Offender Branch of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which is tasked with implementing transgender policies, was re-named the “Women and Special Populations Branch”.

The agency will now use biological sex, not an inmate’s declared gender feelings, as the initial determination for placement of individuals who identify as transgender. Transgender inmates may still be transferred to opposite sex facilities under certain conditions, namely after significant medical and mental health “treatment”.  From the new guidance:

“The designation to a facility of the inmate’s identified gender would be appropriate only in rare

cases after consideration of all of the above factors and where there has been significant progress

towards transition as demonstrated by medical and mental health history.”

Basic changes in this section here.

Click here for full PDF of guidance:

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5200-04-cn-1.pdf

The policy changes were first reported by Buzzfeed, which ran the headline: ‘The Trump Admin Just Rolled Back Protections For Transgender Prisoners’

Of course, this isn’t true. For women who identify as transgender (“transmen”) the Obama era guidance did not protect them. It put them at great risk as females potentially transferred to male prisons. There are ZERO transgender people born FEMALE who were “protected” by the Obama era guidance. ZERO.

But much like the Obama administration, the boys at Buzzfeed completely disregard the welfare, rights, and safety of the female half of the human population, including those who identify as transgender.

You can see this male bias in all the left and LGBT headlines regarding these changes. The welfare of all female inmates, including those who identify as transmen, is completely disregarded and ignored.

The Hill: ‘Trump rolls back rules protecting transgender inmates in federal prisons’

Pink News: ‘Trump rolls back protections for trans prisoners’

Chicago Sun Times: ‘Trump rolls back some Obama rules helping transgender prisoners’

LGBTQ Nation: ‘Trump strips transgender prisoners of protections against rape and abuse’

Common Dreams: ‘Absolutely Unconscionable: Trump Rolls Back Rules Protecting Transgender Inmates From Sexual Assault.’

And on and on and on.

Law professor Betsy Ginsberg. (twitter)

Lambda Legal, the former Gay Rights org that has been championing the rights of men to be housed in women’s prisons, issued a statement that is remarkable for its complete and utter disregard of the existence of female human beings, including those who identify as transgender:

In Rescinding Transgender Prisoner Protections, Trump Administration Again Targets the Most Vulnerable

By

Lambda Legal

MAY 11, 2018

 Today, the Trump Administration released changes to the federal Bureau of Prisons Transgender Offender Manual that undercuts constitutional protections and efforts in federal law – specifically the Prison Rape Enforcement Act (PREA) – to protect all prisoners from sexual assault and violence.

Richard Saenz, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney and Criminal Justice and Police Misconduct Strategist, releases the following statement:

“Once again, the Trump Administration is turning its back on those most vulnerable. It is well established that transgender prisoners – particularly transgender women housed in men’s facilities – suffer much greater rates of sexual abuse than other prison populations.

“A California study found that when transgender women are housed with men, they are 13 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than male prisoners in the same facilities.

“Conversely, it is increasingly common for correctional facilities to house transgender people consistent with their gender identity, and agencies have made these placements without experiencing any increase in abusive incidents or security risks.

“There is no justification for this policy shift; it is a deliberate recipe for violence against transgender people based in inexcusable prejudice.”

Truly remarkable.

Incidentally, that “13 times” figure you see bandied about originates from a 2007 California survey featuring a male transgender sample size of 39 individuals. THIRTY NINE individuals from ELEVEN YEARS AGO. “Transgender Sample -Not designed to generalize to larger populations” the study warns.

So Lambda Legal- the premiere authority and lobby group pushing for these policies- is citing completely worthless “data”. The National Center For Trans Equality uses the same study. So does the National Institute of Corrections [pdf]. But if you believe that figure you may as well also cite these, contained in the same study [PDF]: Men who are gay or bisexual suffer sexual assault in prison at 33 times the rate of heterosexuals. Small stature and mental illness are the greatest predictors of male prisoner vulnerability to sexual assault.

What is Lambda Legal doing about THAT? Not a damn thing. This isn’t about preventing sexual assaults of vulnerable males.

The male powers-that-be on the left keep pretending they’re trying to “solve” the issue of male violence: by subjecting women to more of it. It never works. It just harms women. (You know, women- the unmentionable half of the population not worthy of consideration except as a trash receptacle for men’s problems). Take a memo, fellas: if you think “MeToo” has been a “moment”, you haven’t seen the start of it.

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

No Gender Identity protections for female transgender Connor MacCallister

No Gender Identity protections for female transgender Connor MacCalister

A hunger strike was started by ten transgender activists calling themselves “No Pride In Prison” demanding that a male convicted of a violent crime in New Zealand who says he “identifies as female” be transferred to housing among confined females. The man, Jade Follett, was convicted for stabbing another man in the back three times as the victim tried to run away. The two had met via social networking for a sexual encounter. Follett was offered home detention and anger management training for his 21 month sentence but declined it, opting instead for voluntary incarceration.

Hunger strike until death to affirm Gender Identity rights of Jade Follett

Hunger strike until death to affirm Gender Identity rights of male Jade Follett

Calls were issued for volunteers who would sit with and administer juices and teas to the “Transwomen” who pledged to die of starvation so the voluntarily confined individual could achieve his goal of placement among women confined involuntarily by the state. This action was informed by New Zealand’s adoption of “Gender identity” laws that eliminate the basic human rights of women prisoners to be confined separate from males in favor of the self-reported “gender feelings” of any male who claims they have female brains in their male bodies.

No hunger protest took place to demand Conner MacCalister be placed in male prison in accordance with her long term identity as a man. No transgender activists have protested her “misgendering” as female after a decade of testosterone medical treatment. No transgender legal advocacy organizations have demanded her identity as a man be respected in her prison placement. Her gender identity rights have not been affirmed by transgender advocates. No hunger strike has been announced for the identity rights of Conner MacCalister to be affirmed by placement in the male facility she identifies with. This is because Gender Identity rights apply solely to males. No female benefits from “Gender Identity” rights, ever, including females who identify as male and are “post-transition”.

* The hunger strike for the male inmate was halted after 5 hours when prison authorities agreed to house the violent male inmate among the state confined female population in deference to his belief that he is female-brained. Reports say dinner was early for the hunger strikers, but celebratory.

KOSILEK RULING OVERTURNED

December 17, 2014

[FUCK YOU Kosilek!- GM]

[FUCK YOU Kosilek!- GM]

From the Boston Globe:

“A divided federal appeals court in Boston on Tuesday overturned a lower court’s ruling that a transgender Massachusetts prison inmate, convicted of committing a domestic murder, was entitled to taxpayer-funded sex change surgery.

The ruling by the First US Circuit Court of Appeals came after a 2012 ruling by US District Judge Mark Wolf, who ordered the surgery after finding that the state’s failure to provide it violated the inmate’s Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In January, a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld Wolf’s 2012 decision, but the state of Massachusetts then asked for an en banc, or full bench, review, which led to Tuesday’s ruling.

The ruling came in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born Robert Kosilek. Kosilek is serving a life sentence for killing her wife, Cheryl Kosilek, in 1990.

The court ruled 3-2, with Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson and William J. Kayatta Jr. filing separate dissenting opinions..

“We are faced with the question whether the [state Department of Correction’s] choice of a particular medical treatment is constitutionally inadequate,” the court said in the majority opinion.

“After carefully considering the community standard of medical care, the adequacy of the provided treatment, and the valid security concerns articulated by the DOC, we conclude that the district court erred and that the care provided to Kosilek by the DOC does not violate the Eighth Amendment,” said the opinion, which was written by Judge Juan R. Torruella.

Kosilek and the DOC — under successive administrations, both Democratic and Republican — have battled in the courts for decades over what medical treatment, clothing, makeup should be provided to deal with Kosilek’s gender identity disorder.

Wolf ruled in 2012 that the only medically appropriate treatment for Kosiliek’s condition was the surgery, which would be paid for by the state since Kosilek is a state prison inmate.

But the appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wolf had wrongly substituted his own judgment for the medical professionals, who did not unanimously endorse the surgery as the only appropriate solution for the condition that all sides acknowledged contributed to a depressed mental state and suicide attempts by Kosilek.

Wolf also went too far by “circumvent[ing] the deference owed to prison administrators’’ under federal laws when the issue is the safety of prison inmates, Torruella wrote.

“The prison administrators in this case have decades of combined experience in the management of penological institutions, and it is they, not the court, who are best situated to determine what security concerns will arise,’’ Torruella wrote.

The ruling said the DOC made a valid argument when it expressed concern about the safety of Kosilek and women prisoners he potentially could be housed with once the surgery was done.

“The DOC’s security report reflected that significant concerns would also arise from housing a formerly male inmate — with a criminal history of extreme violence against a female domestic partner — within a female prison population containing high numbers of domestic violence survivors,’’ Torruella wrote.

In a statement, Public Safety Secretary Andrea Cabral said the DOC accepts as true that Kosilek suffers from gender identity disorder diagnosis, and added that was not the issue that the latest round of Kosilek litigation was resolved by the courts on Tuesday.

“The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the medical and mental health care provided to Kosilek by the DOC did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constituion,’’ Cabral said in the statement.

“While we acknowledge the legitimacy of a gender identity disorder diagnosis, DOC’s appeal was based on the lower court’s significant expansion of the standard for what constitutes adequate care under the Eighth Amendment, and on substantial safety and security concerns regarding Ms. Kosilek’s post-surgery needs,’’ Cabral said in the statement.”

————————-

Read more at the link.

[Bolding by me- GM]

Read the court decision here [PDF]: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/12-2194P2-01A.pdf

Read more about Kosilek HERE.

michelle-kosilek

“Psychopaths never quit.” – Margaret Singer

Criminal memoirs, like parole hearings, are not usually known for their authenticity, honesty, self-reflection and accurate reportage. In the criminal memoir every hapless burglar is a master thief, every two-bit hood a mob capo, every sociopath a revolutionary.

Criminal memoirs are: Jack Henry Abbott waxing bromantically to Norman Mailer about the inhumanity of his incarceration -just prior to committing another murder, serial rapist Eldridge Cleaver expounding on the act of rape as a revolutionary act, Tex Watson intoning on the redemptive power of bible-believing among guys who hang pregnant starlets alive while cutting them open.

In the Crime Memoir sub-genre of the “wrongly convicted” the tropes are even more hackneyed as the memoir essentially serves as one long desperate attempt to explain away all that blood. Kosilek’s memoir is of the sub-genre category, flavored with a heaping dose of self-pity, narcissism and sociopathy.

Most of the U.S. “Son of Sam Laws” (enacted in the wake of serial killer David Berkowitz’ attempts to sell his story for profit) have been repealed or overturned on First Amendment grounds leaving murderers free to profit from the dubious celebrity of committing horrific acts and selling them for entertainment to an audience hungry for carnage. Any of the millions of average boring bastards that murder their wives are free to offer their suddenly compelling and unique tale on any of a number of online vanity publishing sites for a few bucks. Kosilek’s memoir “Grace’s Daughter” is one of those, and it was on just such a site that I found it. Yes, I persuaded a friend to kindly give Kosilek two dollars and ninety-nine cents for a copy of his tome. For that ethical indiscretion I am sorry.

I was curious though. Slightly curious. Under three dollars curious.

There are very few reasons to subject oneself to 400-plus pages of self-serving criminal lies. Some of these reasons may include curiosity about a particular crime or crime spree. Perhaps a historic crime is so distinct that the reader longs for some insight to explain the psychology of the perpetrators or details of the era (think “Symbionese Liberation Army“ or the “Manson Family”). Maybe an author relates an inside experience of the justice system and incarceration compellingly. Perhaps the perp is just an entertaining storyteller and a fantastic writer.

Kosilek’s memoir has none of that. Men like him who brutally decapitate their loving wives are, sadly, a dime a dozen. He is a terrible writer and a bad liar. But Kosilek has one thing going for him and his memoir: A judge has issued an order forcing the populace of Massachusetts to pay upwards of $100,000 (including surgery, travel, security including 24 hour hospital guards, post-op care, follow-up appointments both surgical and endocrinological, possible revisions) so that a decapitation killer can have his genitals cosmetically refashioned into a fleshy sheath for other men to stick their dicks into. Because the murderer thinks such a procedure will make him a woman, and the murderer has threatened to be upset and/or harm himself if his delusions are not indulged (and enabled) by the legal system and the public at large.

Again, there is nothing unique about that. Plenty of people believe doctors can perform actual changes of sex, creating women out of men and vice versa. Well maybe not plenty. But lots are willing to pretend they believe, or at least go along with the idea, out of politeness or the hope that doctors and judges know what the hell they are doing. And plenty of people think the presence of a fleshy sheath that men can stick their dicks into defines the female sex.

Perhaps in reading the 103,010 word tome I would gain a new understanding of Kosilek’s savagery and rage for the woman who loved him, who married him, the one whose decapitated body he dumped like so much trash before cooking and enjoying a delicious steak dinner with the victim’s unsuspecting son in the very space he had garroted her hours before?

Read the rest of this entry »

Eleven years ago Lyralisa Stevens killed a woman with a shotgun blast over a dispute about clothing. His victim was survived by two daughters. At the time of his incarceration Mr Stevens had been taking female hormones for 10 years, and had received silicone injections to his hips and buttocks. He received taxpayer funded female hormones during his incarceration at an annual cost of $1000.

According to CBS5 San Francisco, California provides such hormones to at least 300 prisoners at a taxpayer cost of $300,000 a year. It is unknown how many prisoners would request the $15,000 to $50,000 surgery if a precedent is set.

The first taxpayer-funded criminal “sex change” surgery in the UK, performed on John/Jane Anne Pilley, (incarcerated for kidnap and attempted murder of a female taxi driver) not only received a taxpayer funded “sex change” surgery and was transferred to a female prison, but later filed suit for taxpayer-funded surgery to try to reverse the procedure when he changed his mind.

No US state has yet approved such tax-payer funded surgery for convicted criminals.

From the Sacramento Bee:  “Although California and other western states are required to provide transgender inmates with hormone therapy pursuant to a 2000 federal court decision, a ruling in Stevens’ favor would have made California the first state required to provide medically eligible inmates with sex reassignment surgery.”

Two years ago, after serving nine years of his sentence for the murder of Bonnie Lynn Lewis, the California shotgun-wielding murderer Lyralisa Stevens decided he wanted to be transferred to a women’s prison, which California permits when males have had their penis and testicles surgically removed. Using a court-appointed attorney he filed suit for the state to provide and fund the surgical procedure that would make his transfer possible, claiming that his clinical transgender condition had taken a turn for the worse. Clinical transgender diagnosis is based solely on the patient’s self-report, and is the only psychiatric condition that is treated surgically.

Ronshonda Renee and Staci McWilliams, the children of Bonnie Lynn Lewis, who Stevens murdered in 2003, became aware of the situation when they saw it on the news in April and were aghast. They told CBS5 “I just feel that it was totally wrong for you to take someone’s mom away from them and then still turn around and want special privileges. I feel that whatever you are getting, you deserve it,” said McWilliams.

“You want the tax payers to pay? For you to use our hard earned money to pay for you to have surgery after you committed a murder? I don’t think so,” said Ronshonda Renee.

The court gave no reason for its dismissal of the appeal. Transfer to a female prison was also denied. Mr Stevens, now 42, is serving 50 years to life. His attorney has not decided whether to challenge the San Francisco 1st District Court of Appeal’s decision by appealing to the state supreme court.

From the LATimes:  “Alison Hardy, Stevens’ attorney, acknowledged that a victory in her client’s case was always a long shot but said the court’s decision still came as a disappointment. “Fifteen years ago, hormones weren’t prescribed in California prisons, either,” Hardy said. “We were hoping to…establish a beachhead.”

 Research shows that there is no evidence that transgender “sex-change” surgery improves the lives of transgenders.