REUTERS/Larry Downing photo of President Obama with HUD appointee Julian Castro

REUTERS/Larry Downing photo of President Obama with HUD appointee Julian Castro

 

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:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-22589.pdf

 

.

Female Erasure

June 30, 2016

sarah pedo nyberg

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

Look at this prick. When you hear about the “transwomen” demanding entry into women’s colleges, this is what they are talking about: