Equal opportunity for girls in high school sports strips boys of their humanity, says Hartford Courant opinion editor Carolyn Lumsden
April 9, 2017
Equal opportunity for girls in high school sports strips boys of their humanity, says Hartford Courant opinion editor Carolyn Lumsden, in a Sunday Editorial titled ‘Humanity At Cromwell High’
Humanity is reserved for boys, not girls, and acceptance of this notion is what female student athletes need to do in the case of Andraya Yearwood, a fifteen year old boy who prefers to win against girls than compete against other males on an even playing field.
Lumsden goes on to define separate but equal sports teams for boys and girls as a form of sex-based segregation comparable to racial segregation and the history of exclusion of disabled students from equal access prior to the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
What matters is not that female students have a right to compete, but that the feelings of male students are much more important. Prioritizing male feelings over opportunities for women and girls is the definition of a humane society, Lumsden writes.
February 23, 2017
The Obama administration’s ‘Guidance’ had eliminated the protected legal category of ‘sex’ and replaced it with an individual’s personal identification with the sex role stereotypes culturally assigned based on sex, called ‘Gender Identity’.
Adherents of the ‘Gender Identity’ movement believe that biological sex, and therefore sex-based discrimination, does not exist and that instead, sex-role stereotypes need to be legally enforced, supported, and protected. By eliminating sex as a recognized category the Obama era “Guidance’ allowed male students to occupy formerly protected female showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms, and eliminated the rights of female students to privacy from males in those spaces.
Gavin Grimm, the high school senior whose Title IX lawsuit is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in March, described in a 2016 essay how years of sexism, bullying, and homophobia led to her adopting a belief in ‘Gender Identity’:
“When I was little, I didn’t think of myself as a boy or a girl. I thought of myself as a kid who did what I wanted. When I started school, though, that gender divide became more apparent. I noticed that boys didn’t want to play with me. I had a best friend in elementary school, and one day he just said, “Hey, we can’t hang out any more.” When I asked why, he said, “’Cause you’re a girl.” I was indignant. “What are you talking about?” I asked. “What does that even mean?”
I never, ever, in a million years envisioned myself growing up to be a woman. I don’t think I thought of any alternatives, but I knew for sure that I was not going to grow up and be a woman. When puberty hit, my biggest struggle was not only feeling betrayed by my body, but also the increasing pressure to become a little lady.
It was around this age that my leg hair started growing in — and I did not want to shave it. I loved having leg hair; I thought it was cool! But, my classmates didn’t agree. My mother, of course, put a lot of pressure on me — because I was “blossoming into a young woman” and all that — to conform to feminine archetypes. That caused a lot of conflict in my family relationships. I was a very volatile, angry kid in that time period.
But, I didn’t give up; I just continued refusing to shave or wear dresses. I gravitated towards boys’ clothes. It started slowly: Oh, here’s one Pokémon shirt because I love Pokémon. Soon, I was only shopping in the boys’ section. My mother (and I want to make it very clear that she has come a very, very long way) is Christian. She had a lot of problems with homosexuality, and she perceived me to be a homosexual female because I was very masculine in how I acted and dressed. At one point, she came to me and said, “You’re so angry, and I know why.” I said, “Wait, you do?” And, she said, “You’re a lesbian.”
I was about 11 or 12 at the time. And, I knew I liked girls, but I’d never, ever, ever identified with the term “lesbian” — calling yourself a lesbian means asserting yourself as a woman, and I didn’t want to do that. I wanted to live in that gray area where I didn’t have to say that I was anything. So, the conflict started again. Apparently, being a lesbian doesn’t excuse you from shaving your legs.
I found out about the word “transgender” when I was watching YouTube. I clicked on somebody’s video, and he looked like a girl. Then, I watched another video from, like, two years later — he was a dude! And, you know, I was 12 and thinking, Holy crap. What did he just do? I want to do it!
By the time I was 13, I started questioning things that the Christian Bible considered “sinful.” My body was betraying me more and more, the older I got. It was a horrifying experience — one that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. There’s nothing that I can think of that compares to the emotional and mental anguish. I was bullied a lot for being masculine and for being perceived as a lesbian. I was chubby and I was different. It was a cacophany of bad.
That’s when I finally revisited the idea that maybe male vs. female wasn’t all there was to it. I actually came across a scientific study showing differences in the brains of cis males and trans females — despite both being born with “male” bodies. I thought, Wow, maybe I’m not crazy.”
‘Gender Identity’ doctrine reframes the cultural issue of sexism and misogyny as an individual, personal, medical adjustment issue which eliminates the ability to meaningfully critique or politically address the male supremacist power structure of sex-roles themselves. ‘Gender Identity’ eliminates sex as a recognized category while codifying the roles.
The text of yesterday’s letter withdrawing the Obama administration ‘Gender Identity’ Guidance is as follows in bold:
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
February 22, 2017
The purpose of this guidance is to inform you that the Department of Justice and the Department of Education are withdrawing the statements of policy and guidance reflected in:
- Letter to Emily Prince from James A. Ferg-Cadima, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education dated January 7, 2015; and
- Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students jointly issued by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Department of Education dated May 13, 2016.
These guidance documents take the position that the prohibitions on discrimination “on the basis of sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulations, see, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, require access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity. These guidance documents do not, however, contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX, nor did they undergo any formal public process.
This interpretation has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the term “sex” in the regulations is ambiguous and deferred to what the court characterized as the “novel” interpretation advanced in the guidance. By contrast, a federal district court in Texas held that the term “sex” unambiguously refers to biological sex and that, in any event, the guidance was “legislative and substantive” and thus formal rulemaking should have occurred prior to the adoption of any such policy. In August of 2016, the Texas court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the interpretation, and that nationwide injunction has not been overturned.
In addition, the Departments believe that, in this context, there must be due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.
In these circumstances, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved. The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.
Please note that this withdrawal of these guidance documents does not leave students without protections from discrimination, bullying, or harassment. All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights will continue its duty under law to hear all claims of discrimination and will explore every appropriate opportunity to protect all students and to encourage civility in our classrooms. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are committed to the application of Title IX and other federal laws to ensure such protection.
This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law. If you have questions or are interested in commenting on this letter, please contact the Department of Education at firstname.lastname@example.org or 800-421-3481 (TDD: 800-877-8339); or the Department of Justice at email@example.com or 877-292-3804 (TTY: 800- 514-0383).
/s/ Sandra Battle
Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education
T.E. Wheeler, II
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Justice
February 8, 2017
October 28, 2016
September 21, 2016
The Department of Housing and Urban Development joined other Obama agencies Tuesday in ruling that ‘Gender Identity’ determines reproductive biology and overrides Title IX sex-based protections for women and girls in homeless shelters. The department defines Gender Identity as “the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth and regardless of the person’s perceived gender identity.” [p70]
The ruling allows any male to access female sleeping quarters, showers, and restrooms on the basis of self-declared ‘Gender Identity’. Questioning such a declaration on any basis is ruled as discriminatory and women’s rational need for privacy and safety from male violence is dismissed as “unsubstantiated fears” [p52].
The rule explicitly forbids requesting evidence of a “transition”, including duration, consistency, or sincerity of belief in declared ‘Gender Identity’. There is no provision to address men who may assert ‘Gender Identity’ for an improper purpose:
“HUD also revises paragraph (b) to add a provision that the policies and procedures must ensure that individuals are not subjected to intrusive questioning or asked to provide anatomical information or documentary, physical, or medical evidence of the individual’s gender identity.”[p13]
HUD disregards with a handwave the rationale for protection of female privacy and safety against male violence behind the Congress’s Title IX provision for sex-segregation in areas of public nudity:
“Contrary to the public comment that suggests what Congress’s intent was in creating single-sex facilities, HUD does not opine on Congress’s intent behind permitting single-sex facilities, but does make clear in this rule that, for purposes of determining placement in a single-sex facility, placement should be made consistent with an individual’s gender identity. This rule does not attempt to interpret or define sex.” [p30]
Yet the HUD ruling does re-define legal sex -as a characteristic on par with sex-stereotypes of “appearance, behavior, expression”- falling under the newly invented federal category of “Perceived Gender Identity”:
“Perceived gender identity means the gender with which a person is perceived to identify based on that person’s appearance, behavior, expression, other gender related characteristics, or sex assigned to the individual at birth or identified in documents.” [p70]
The ruling itself re-defines ‘sex’ as a component of ‘Perceived Gender Identity’ but the agency also defines ‘Gender Identity’ as a “component of sex’ in its response to public comment:
“In response to the comment with regard to this rule’s impact on a “legal sex category,” this rule does not provide a definition of “woman” or “sex.” In this rule, HUD notes that gender identity—and whether a person identifies with their sex assigned at birth or not—is a component of sex.” [p45]
HUD cites the Title IX re-interpretation of other Obama appointed agencies (which call for the elimination of sex as a protected category) as precedent for Tuesday’s ruling, making no mention of the current legal challenges to this very interpretation by 23 states and various private litigants:
“Consistent with the approach taken by other Federal agencies, HUD has determined that the most appropriate way for shelter staff to determine an individual’s gender identity for purposes of a placement decision is to rely on the individual’s self-identification of gender identity.” [p39]
HUD cites various internet surveys as evidence that males with ‘Gender Identities’ are at greater risk of harassment and violence than women and girls. Therefore HUD rules that women and girls must be forced by the state to sacrifice their own safety and absorb the risk from males who prefer sleeping and bathing among women. HUD addresses the safety concerns of individuals with ‘Gender Identities’ extensively, including those who ‘identify as’ having no reproductive biology at all:
“In circumstances where an individual does not identify as male or female and such information is relevant to placement and accommodation, the individual should be asked the gender with which the individual most closely identifies. In these circumstances, the individual is in the best position to specify the more appropriate gender-based placement as well as the placement that is most likely to be the safest for the individual—either placement with males or placement with females.” [p48]
Yet HUD completely disregards voluminous FBI, CDC, and other forensic documentation of epidemic sex-based violence against women committed by males as “beyond the scope” of the ruling, wrapping up their dismissal with a version of the classic ‘but women rape too!’:
“HUD’s rule requires that individuals be accommodated in accordance with their gender identity. It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, as discussed earlier, this final rule requires that providers must take nondiscriminatory steps that may be necessary and appropriate to address privacy concerns raised by all residents or occupants. HUD notes that both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and other VAWA crimes include persons who are transgender or gender nonconforming individuals and persons who are not”. [p58]
HUD fully expects violence, (which it calls “physical harassment”) to occur between homeless women and the males placed in female sleeping and bathing areas as a result of this ruling:
“If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants. HUD recognizes that, even then, conflicts may persist and complaints may escalate to verbal or physical harassment. In these situations, providers should have policies and procedures in place to support residents and staff in addressing and resolving conflicts that escalate to harassment.”[p17]
Strangely, although statistics show that female stranger violence against males is an infinitesimal probability compared to the reverse, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is, yet again, solely concerned with the former- the issue of women’s protection from male violence being “beyond the scope” of the Obama administration’s mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women.
Read the full HUD decision here:
North Carolina pushes back against transgender mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women and girls
March 24, 2016
Governor Pat McCrory signed House Bill 2 into law late Wednesday after the state legislature convened in a special one-day session to prevent a local Charlotte ordinance from taking effect April 1.
The Charlotte ordinance provided anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people but included a “Gender Identity” provision that eliminated sex-based protections for women and girls- in fact, it eliminated the legal category of “sex” entirely. The ordinance allowed any man, including convicted sex-offenders, to access women’s facilities merely by declaring a “feeling” that they were reproductively female, although male-bodied.
House Bill 2 eliminates the ability of local municipalities to enact their own unique categories of legal protections within the state. The bill also creates the first statewide anti-discrimination policy for women and girls, based on legal sex (which is already a federally-protected right but one under attack from the Obama administration -which seeks to replace the legal category of sex with “Gender Identity”, a subjective and undefined quality lacking any characteristics and based on men’s “feelings”.
North Carolina becomes the first state to officially clarify that areas of public nudity (such as restrooms and locker rooms) in state-run facilities (such as public schools and municipal buildings), are sex-segregated areas. An exception is made for transgender individuals who change their legal sex marker on their birth certificates. Transgender lobbying groups had declined to propose any sort of compromise prior to the session, claiming that excluding convicted male sex-offenders from women’s spaces would restrict the men’s rights to express their feelings.
The measure passed the House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support while all the Democrats in the Senate took the unusual step of recusing themselves by walking out of the session and declining to register a vote either way. The remaining Republicans passed the measure by unanimous 32-0 vote. The legislature will not reconvene until April 30.
“As the person who made this policy change happen before I hit peak trans I know first hand that it will be horrible for womyn”, says Sarah Fraas, the student leader of the Smith College campaign which forced the historic women-only college to admit males who “identify as” female.
Fraas created the “Trans Women Belong Here” group and ran their “Smith Q&A” website and twitter account. She organized the public protests, and hand-lettered the signs for the attendees herself. “Look at me on the far left before I woke up/shaved my head. So surreal to see my handwriting on all of these stupid signs” she says in hindsight in a recent post on her new blog.
The “Transwomen at Smith Q&A” Facebook page, modeled after Sarah Fraas’s website but apparently managed by another student who still supports men at the school, posted an advisory on December 17:
“Dear Q & A supporters
It has come to our attention within the past few hours that both our tumblr (formerly smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com) and twitter (@transwomenatsc) have been edited by an outside source to reflect trans exclusionary and transmisogynist views that this organization does not hold, and actively opposes.
We have confirmed that these pages have been accessed by someone who used to be involved in our organization. This person has changed the passwords and these outlets are no longer affiliated with Q&A.
You can access a preserved copy of our tumblr here: https://web.archive.org/…/…/http://smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com/ If anyone with web expertise knows something about transferring this data to a freestanding, new tumblr, please get in touch (though it is finals- we will do our best to respond). We do not recommend accessing these former accounts.”
Sarah Fraas’s original campaign was sparked by an autogynephile Connecticut male high school student named Calliope Wong who demanded the right to force women to play along with his sexual fantasy that he is female. Wong has since declined admission to Smith and now runs a loony blog where he repetitively posts demands for an honorary degree from the women’s college for hurting his feelings juxtaposed with pleas for his various GoFundMe campaigns:
“Now, I get that I’m 20 and that most Honorary Degrees are conferred upon people who’ve done decades of work in their respective fields. But trans women facing these compounded forms of violence, in general we don’t have a record of living very long or with very high standards of living. There are few remaining trans elders beyond the age of 40, as it is. We must account for why.
This is why I think we should make this plan happen.
Please share this plan with Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, Mills College, Wellesley College, Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, and other women’s college alum and current students.
Let’s discuss strategy.”
Not only did Sarah Fraas Spend three (very expensive!) years at Smith spearheading Wong’s womanhood project- she went that extra distance and targeted Lesbian Feminists and gender critical women who published opinions which contradicted his. She obsessively stalked women who disagreed online and tracked down their personal information, including their employers, whom she then contacted, over and over, sending them falsified claims of wrongdoing in ghastly letters, like a crazy person, and she used the upper class cache of the Smith College reputation to do so. For three years.
Now, she says “radical feminism saved my life”. Male individuals are no longer female, and that “ I may also write about going down the male-approval trans BS “transwomen deserve to be in women’s spaces” rabbithole thing at some point…”
O-kay. That totally fucked up -arguably criminal- “thing” she did for three years might someday be redressed.
No urgency there. No apparent obligation to undo what she has done. No dashing off apologetic letters to women’s employers. No consciousness of harm done by her real-life stalking of regular working women she disagreed with. No apology to lesbians. No campaign- or even a note- sent to the Smith College board that she lobbied passionately and urgently for years on Mr. Wong’s behalf. She still cites her trans social justice award nomination on her LinkedIn. But hey. She might write about that whole male-approval “rabbithole thing” that she did. At some point. Maybe.