We Need To Talk About Gender

September 22, 2017

Show up for Women’s Rights

Defend Free Speech for Women

#DEBATENOTHATE

Attend:

During Labour Party Conference:

What’s Gender?

Come discuss!

11am Wednesday 27 September – Brighton

Venue TBA

Defend:

Follow-

@GRAdiscussion

@sexgenderethics

@Womans_Place_UK

Support:

Donate w PayPal to offredcohen@gmail.com ❤️

Pink News CEO Benjamin Cohen [ITV News]

Benjamin Cohen, CEO of Pink News, announced on Twitter that he believes any transwomen who has visible facial hair – even those who are legally “female”- should be charged and prosecuted as sex offenders if they use female change rooms.

The surprise announcement took place in an exchange with NewStatesman editor Helen Lewis, in response to her op-ed in The Times titled “A Man Can’t Just Say He Has Turned Into A Woman”. Lewis wrote the piece addressing the feminist backlash against UK’s proposed “self identification” Gender Identity process, which would allow any man at the stroke of a pen to be legally regarded as “female” to access women’s change rooms, scholarships, hospital wards, sports competitions, abuse shelters, jail cells, etc.

You can read her piece here (paywall): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/a-man-can-t-just-say-he-has-turned-into-a-woman-m5lltcgv7

Photo of Helen Lewis Op-ed 1

 

Photo of Helen Lewis Op-ed 2

Benjamin Cohen, a gay anti-feminist activist who has used his platform to lobby against the rights of lesbians to hold female-only events on the grounds that they discriminate against the sexual rights of heterosexual males, initiated the exchange after publishing the following article on his Pink News site:

 

Benjamin Cohen’s Pink News article

Cohen then tweeted at Helen Lewis from his @benjamincohen account, asking “Why do people like @helenlewis always turn trans rights into “someone with a beard exposing their penis in the women’s changing room?” He included a screen cap with the following quote from her article:

“What the government proposes is a radical rewriting of our understanding of identity: now it’s a question of an internal essence- a soul, if you will. Being a woman or a man is now entirely in your head. In this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a women’s changing room?

That’s why feminists have raised the alarm over the move to self-identification, along with some older trans people who fear that “trendsters” will erode the goodwill they have worked hard to aquire.”

Helen Lewis responded, “Hi Ben, as a man I don’t expect you to get how much women value single-sex spaces for safety reasons. But I would expect you to listen.”

The Twitter exchange

Benjamin Cohen responded in no uncertain terms: he believes transwomen with visible facial hair should be prosecuted as sex offenders. He stated: “Your example” [of a male with facial hair disrobing in women’s change rooms] would still be indecent exposure, so why link it to trans rights?”

Legally female transwomen like prominent trans rights activists Danielle Muscato and Alex Drummond stand to be prosecuted for indecent exposure under Pink News CEO Benjamin Cohen’s views.

Danielle Muscato, legally “female” male who identifies as a transwoman.

 

Alex Drummond, legally “female” male who identifies as a transwoman.

 

People hit back after Cohen’s statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benjamin Cohen responded to comments by disappearing from Twitter. The title of his Pink News article was also changed:

 

Pink News CEO Benjamin Cohen: Updated Title

 

 

 

 

The male imperative to insert the bepenised population into women’s restrooms, along with every other women’s space (changing rooms, sports programs, penal institutions, homeless shelters, reproductive health centers, lesbian events) is the “civil rights issue of our time”, apparently, because such carve-outs for women in public life cruelly oppress and dehumanize penis-owners (by excluding them and hurting their feelings) all because of a misunderstood little millennia of institutionalized sexual violence and terrorism against females by males, which has resulted in the offensive and erroneous profiling of males as dangerous, when they simply insist that women have the decency to pretend that such a campaign is not ongoing and that we implement no strategy to defend ourselves.

Declaring female turf: space that women can freely occupy, troubles the tradition that female human beings are themselves ground, the substrate that exists for males to trod upon.

This cruel and baseless female affront to male humanity (and their very existence) played out genocidally (if male egos were the definition of humanity and hurting them were murder) in a comedically humorous fashion when a female human being complained publicly about the impact of a UK theatre’s “Gender Neutral” restroom policy. The horror. Oh, the horror.

The Barbican Centre is a London multiplex of culture: hosting musical, theatrical, art and cinematic product. “The largest of its kind in Europe”.

A few months ago, the Barbican realized that having restrooms for women were offensive to male patrons and imposed on male rights to access all areas. “Civil rights issue of our time” and all. Although the number of female restrooms were already substandard and inadequate, as evidenced by the number of women forced to wait in line, the Centre made a decision to be on the right side of history. They put signs up on the cinema restrooms declaring the male restroom “Gender Neutral. Urinals.” And the female restroom “Gender Neutral. Stalls.” What else could they do? Good progressives must make a stand against the oppression caused by female individuals and their crazy misandrist demands for special accommodations.

Well gosh. Who on earth could have predicted that for some inexplicable reason, women continued not using the male urinals? And that men took over the female restroom? And that men now dominated both the formerly female and male restrooms? Crazy.

This apparently went on for months, with women doing what women are supposed to do: keep their mouths shut and abide. For the Gender Neutral folks (special souls!), For the better good! For the Civil Rights Movement Of Our Time! Hold your piss ladies! Your civic duty!

It finally went sour when a single woman- BBC journalist Samira Ahmed, 2009 Stonewall Broadcast of The Year Award winner for her reports on corrective rape of lesbians in South Africa, announced that the emperor had no clothes, when she posted seven tweets over three hours [https://twitter.com/SamiraAhmedUK/status/849338626202886144] that read as follows:

 

These sensible and moderate complaints resulted in three media reports at the time of publication:

  1. The Times UK reported that Ahmed “launched a tirade” and went on to speculate that her tweets “were likely to refer to the debate over the use of women’s lavatories by transgender people”. Because god. Everyone is starved to hear “bullshit!” called on “trans”. Read their coverage here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-queue-up-to-condemn-arts-centres-unisex-lavatories-jq9mswjsp

Or here:

click to enlarge

 

2. Benjamin Butterworth at Pink News titled his piece on Ahmed’s seven tweets:

‘BBC News Host Has Three Hour Rant At Venue’s Gender Neutral Toilets’.

The bolded portions below have since been deleted.

By Benjamin Butterworth A Radio 4 presenter has lashed out at gender neutral toilets introduced at a popular London performance venue.

Samira Ahmed, presenter of BBC shows Front Row and Newswatch, launched into an angry Twitter attack after the Barbican changed its toilet signs.

She wrote: “So dear Barbican Centre bosses, listen to your customers. “Women [have enough] trouble with queues without you imposing your politics.

“Or just turn the gents into gender-neutral loos. There’s never such a queue there and you know it. Thank you.”

The angry rant, which lasted almost three hours, is likely to exasperate the debate over the use of women’s lavatories by transgender people.

She complained that one of the bathrooms was “full of men”, writing: “Women’s loo labelled ‘gender neutral’ so full of men who also have a ‘urinal’ to themselves. Totally ridiculous.”

Ahmed went on: “Give us back women’s loos for all women.

“Why do women lose our space to men!? All women can use ladies loos. This isn’t the USA.”

Donald Trump recently overturned a rule designed to protect transgender young people, allowing them to use the bathroom they identify with.

The Barbican has since responded to her complaints, writing online: “We introduced the gender-neutral toilets in part of the centre as part of our commitment to welcoming all and creating a supportive and tolerant space,” a spokesman for the centre said.

“We welcome all your feedback about the new system as we look to ensure an outstanding audience experience for all.”

Rebecca Stinson, head of trans inclusion at Stonewall, told The Times: “It’s really encouraging that more businesses want to help trans people feel safe and welcome.

“However, before making this move, businesses must research the best way to make a space fully inclusive and communicate the importance of inclusion clearly with staff.

“Other easy steps include . . . ensuring that trans people know they are welcome to use the facilities they find most appropriate.”

PinkNews has contacted the BBC for comment.

The online rants comes [sic] after another Radio 4 presenter, Dame Jenni Murray, was widely condemned by trans activists for writing the trans women are not “real women”.

The Woman’s Hour host and feminist wrote in the Sunday Times Magazine that trans women can never be “real women” because they could experience male privilege before they transition.

The BBC failed to discipline the veteran broadcaster, but issued a statement saying: “Jenni Murray is a freelance journalist and these were her own views, however we have reminded her that presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes.”

She goes on to criticise comments made by trans broadcaster India Willoughby, who after becoming the first trans woman to co-host Loose Women, appeared on Woman’s Hour in December.”

Benjamin Butterworth’s Pink News Report was edited hours later. He retitled his post. He removed his falsified claim characterizing seven tweets as a “three-hour rant”, and the phrase “lashing out” and added a sentence calling the brutal corrective rape against lesbians in South Africa as “so-called corrective rape”. HOLY SHIT. Changes in Bold:

BBC News host tweets for three hours about venue’s gender neutral toilets

A BBC News presenter has posted a series of tweets about gender neutral toilets introduced at a popular London performance venue.

Samira Ahmed, presenter of BBC shows Front Row and Newswatch, launched into a Twitter tirade after the Barbican changed its toilet signs.

She wrote: “So dear Barbican Centre bosses, listen to your customers.

“Women [have enough] trouble with queues without you imposing your politics.

“Or just turn the gents into gender-neutral loos. There’s never such a queue there and you know it. Thank you.”

The Tweets, which were posted over almost three hours, come as the debate about gendered toilets continues to grow.

She wrote that one of the bathrooms was “full of men”, writing: “Women’s loo labelled ‘gender neutral’ so full of men who also have a ‘urinal’ to themselves. Totally ridiculous.”

Ahmed went on: “Give us back women’s loos for all women.

“Why do women lose our space to men!? All women can use ladies loos. This isn’t the USA.”

Donald Trump recently overturned a rule designed to protect transgender young people, allowing them to use the bathroom they identify with.

The Barbican has since responded to her complaints, writing online: “We introduced the gender-neutral toilets in part of the centre as part of our commitment to welcoming all and creating a supportive and tolerant space,” a spokesman for the centre said.

“We welcome all your feedback about the new system as we look to ensure an outstanding audience experience for all.”

Although the BBC anchor’s nearest bathrooms were gender neutral, the Barbican has many gendered bathrooms should someone wish to use an alternative.[*]

Rebecca Stinson, head of trans inclusion at Stonewall, told The Times: “It’s really encouraging that more businesses want to help trans people feel safe and welcome.

“However, before making this move, businesses must research the best way to make a space fully inclusive and communicate the importance of inclusion clearly with staff.

“Other easy steps include . . . ensuring that trans people know they are welcome to use the facilities they find most appropriate.”

Ms Ahmed previously won an award from Stonewall for her investigation into so-called ‘corrective rape’.

The BBC declined to comment on the presenter’s comments.

The online rants comes after another Radio 4 presenter, Dame Jenni Murray, was widely condemned by trans activists for writing trans women are not “real women”.

The Woman’s Hour host and feminist wrote in the Sunday Times Magazine that trans women can never be “real women” because they could experience male privilege before they transition.

The BBC failed to discipline the veteran broadcaster, but issued a statement saying: “Jenni Murray is a freelance journalist and these were her own views, however we have reminded her that presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes.”

She went on to criticise comments made by trans broadcaster India Willoughby, who after becoming the first trans woman to co-host Loose Women, appeared on Woman’s Hour in December.

[* The alternate restrooms were located on the basement level]

Pink News “So Called” Corrective Rape

If you want to see more about Ahmed’s report on what Pink News calls the “so called” (WHAT THE FUCKKKKK??!!!) corrective rape of lesbians, click here: http://www.samiraahmed.co.uk/featured-videos/

….

Rebecca Stinson, head of trans inclusion at Stonewall who was quoted in both articles, penned a piece two years ago titled “I’m a TransWoman And I Don’t Want Gender Neutral Toilets”.

In that piece he opined that forcing himself into female restrooms, although it caused women distress, was his way of affirming his identity. He suggested that women who feared him should be “Ejected from the loo” and forced to use a “gender bigot toilet”. “I’m not going anywhere. I’m a trans woman and I am more than happy to piss wherever there’s a girl on the door,” he states. Read his post here:

http://thetab.com/uk/northumbria/2015/03/24/im-a-trans-woman-and-i-dont-want-gender-neutral-toilets-7359

Stinson now lobbies on behalf of @StonewallUK for removal of sex as a protected legal category for women, placement of male convicts in women’s prisons, and for “Gender Neutral” changing rooms and the replacement of women’s sports with “Gender Neutral” sports:  http://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stw-vision-for-change-2017.pdf He also blogs at http://transactiongirl.blogspot.com where he says readers can “Feel free to enjoy my intellectual nourishment all day long”.

 

Rebecca Stinson of Stonewall UK

The third media report was a direct interview with BBC’s Vanessa Feltz, who suggests women should suck it up. Samira suggests there’s reasonable grounds for a sex discrimination suit.

Listen here at 1:35

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04xf5n9

 

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

 

.

protest 2

Photo from Twiter

*BREAKING STORY*

London – Furious at the impending erasure of women’s rights resulting from the 2015 Parliamentary Women and Equalities Committee Report headed by the Conservative Party’s Maria Miller, women representing a coalition of feminist, progressive, and lesbian organizations picketed today’s Westminster Social Policy Forum on Transgender Rights.

 

Protesters expressed outrage at the Committee’s recommendation to remove sex-based protections for women and girls by erasing the protected category of ‘sex’ and replacing it with an undefined category of ‘gender identity’. The proposed change would eliminate the ability of women to seek redress under law for sex discrimination and sex inequality. Such violations would no longer be recognized by the state as the category of ‘sex’ itself would no longer exist.

 

If the Equality Committee’s recommendations go forth as planned, the elimination of legal sex as a protected class will be replaced by an individual’s declaration of their subjective and internal gender-based “feelings”. This would give men who proclaim such gender feelings the legal right to expose themselves in women’s locker rooms and other single-sex facilities where public nudity occurs and where women are particularly vulnerable. Convicted male prisoners who proclaim gender feelings will be housed in cells with confined female prisoners who will have no legal grounds to object. Men will have the right to compete in women’s sports, apply for women’s scholarships, and the right to serve as female proxies by occupying affirmative action slots which formerly served to address sex inequality in women’s representation in public life. Single-sex rape crisis services, women’s refuges, lesbian public events, will become illegal on the grounds they discriminate against the gender feelings of men.

bathroom-uk_640x345_acf_cropped

From a flyer distributed at the protest:

 

Women’s voices are being ignored and our rights eroded in the name of ‘transgender equality’. Current policy recommendations regarding transgender rights have a potentially adverse effect on women in a number of ways:

 

  • The pressure on parents to accept a trans diagnosis for a gender non-conforming child, based on gender stereotypes of clothing and toy preferences; or in the case of teenagers, to give in to the social media contagion to which they might be susceptible.

 

  • The threat to current sex-based rights, which keep males and females segregated in public places where women and girls might be physically vulnerable. These include toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, refuges, hospital wards and prisons.

 

  • The inclusion of male-bodied, male-socialised people, into areas of success and achievement where women currently have their own space in order to make competition fair or to level the playing field. These include sports, prizes and awards, shortlists and quotas.

 

  • The negative affect on the lesbian community of the pressure on young women to identify as trans rather than as lesbian. There is also pressure to accept male-bodied self-identified ‘lesbians’ as sexual partners.

 

  • The skewing of national statistics regarding crime, due to the higher rate of offending by male transitioners as opposed to women, with possible knock-on effects on funding for women’s services.

 

  • The effect on the ‘trans widows’ of men (and it mostly is men) who transition in middle age. There is nowhere for these women to turn: all the help and support is directed towards the ‘trans’ person.

 

  • The changing of language pertinent to women and girls in order to make it more trans-inclusive, thereby making ‘women’s issues’ impossible to talk about. This includes the use of such terms as ‘pregnant people’ by health providers.

 

 

No women’s groups were invited to testify at the 2015 Women’s and Equalities Committee hearings on the largest proposed rollback to the legal status of women since the birth of the Suffrage Movement.

The Independent covered the growing outrage in January of this year, reporting on Committee Chair MP Maria Miller: “The former Culture secretary said she was taken aback by the “extraordinary” hostility from a minority of women “purporting to be feminists”.

“The only negative reaction that I’ve seen has been by individuals purporting to be feminists,” Miller went on to say.

Fellow committee member, Labour MP Jess Phillips, was quoted as saying: “Some feminists prioritise gender equality above all else, but I think we should also do our bit to promote general equality.”

 

Today’s public forum at Congress Centre in London was organized by the same individuals behind the proposal to erase legal sex-based protections for women and girls. From the event page:

We are delighted to include at this seminar keynote addresses from Jackie Driver, Director, Funded Programmes, Equality and Human Rights Commission; Will Huxter, Regional Director of Specialised Commissioning (London) and Chair, Gender Identity Task and Finish Group, NHS England and Ade Rawcliffe, Creative Diversity Manager, Channel 4.

Helen Belcher, Trustee, Trans Media Watch; Dr Polly Carmichael, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Clinical Director, Gender Identity Development Service, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust; Peter Dawson, Deputy Director, Prison Reform Trust; Dave Frost, Vice-Chair, LGBT Committee, Equity; Susie Green, Chief Executive Officer, Mermaids UK; Dr Debbie Hayton, Head of Physics, King Henry VIII School, Coventry, West Midlands; Member, NASUWT and Member, TUC LGBT Committee; Delia Johnston, Specialist Diversity Consultant, Trans in Sport; Anna Lee, Vice President, Welfare and Community, Lancaster University Students’ Union; Megan Key, Equalities Manager, National Probation Service; Steve Mulcahy, Headteacher, Richard Lander School, Cornwall have also agreed to speak.

Baroness Barker, Vice Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights and Ruth Cadbury MP, Member, Women and Equalities Committee have kindly agreed to chair this seminar.

The agenda [http://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/forums/agenda/transgender-equality-2016-agenda.pdf]

protest 3

Photo from Twitter

Women’s groups represented at the protest include the Women and Girls Equality Network, Transgender Trend, UK Lesbian Rights Group, and Parents Campaigning for Sex Equality for Children, among others.

Another flyer from protesters:

flyer 2

 

*UPDATES TO THIS STORY WILL BE POSTED IN COMMENTS BELOW*

protest1

Photo from Twitter

women speak out 1 women speak out 2

Julian Castro- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and no friend to women and girls.

Julian Castro- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and no friend to women and girls.

Julian Castro, the US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (and the likely Vice Presidential running-mate of Hilary Clinton) has announced his agency’s intention to eliminate the legally protected category of sex in homeless shelters nationwide, eliminating the right of vulnerable women and girls to shower, sleep and toilet separately from homeless men.

HUD had previously issued a non-binding “guidance” document back in February 2015 suggesting that physical sex be redefined as “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” and prohibiting those providers of homeless services who receive HUD funding from inquiring about the physical sex or sexual orientation of service recipients. Kind of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision. Providers were instructed to assess clients on the basis of adherence to sex-role stereotypes and make their own determination of the client’s transgender status. Those suspected of possible cross-sex identification were to be advised that the agency provides placement based on “gender-related characteristics”, and not physical sex: “where a provider is uncertain of the client’s sex or gender identity and that information matters for the determination of placement, the provider informs the client or potential client that the agency provides shelter based on the individual’s gender identity.”

HUD’s non-binding February 2015 “guidance” was similar to those recently issued by other Federal Obama administration agencies [such as the DOE’s “guidance” overturning Title IX protections for women and girls, and the DOL’s “guidance” eliminating privacy for women in workplace accommodations] which attempt to reinterpret existing protected sex categories into a cluster of unspecified psychological characteristics which the government redefines as the core human reproductive trait, overriding biology (or any other objective measure).

The proposed new rule is a modification of the previous “guidance” that HUD issued and will change federal law, officially removing sex as a protected category and creating precedent for other agencies to bypass the legislature, judiciary, and public debate in eliminating the legal category of sex under which women’s rights are protected. (HUD Secretary Julian Castro actually cites the DOE’s recent highly controversial reinterpretation of physical sex -as a subjective psychological self-perceived essence- under Title IX as the governmental authority which sets the precedent justifying his own agency’s move to elevate its internal “guidance” into federal regulation.)

Julian Castro’s new HUD rule will be the first official elimination of legal sex-based protections for private citizens under federal law by agency regulation, and homeless impoverished women in crisis- largely women of color with children, most of them survivors of male violence- are the first targets. Under this new law legal sex status will be redefined by the US government as “gender identity” defined as such:

“Gender identity means the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.”

Biological sex will be conflated with sex-stereotypes of “appearance, behavior, expression and other gender-related characteristics” and become “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.”

This law is designed to allow homeless males to bathe and bunk in shelters set aside for females and specifically forbids agencies to consider the rights of women and girls to bathe, bunk, and bathroom separately from men. There is no provision for “improper purpose”. There is no “right to privacy”. There are 18 references to “health and safety” issues and concerns but the source of potential dis-ease and danger is never identified:

“In deciding how to house a [transgender] victim, a recipient that provides sex-segregated housing may consider on a case-by-case basis whether a particular housing assignment would ensure the victim’s health and safety. A victim’s own views with respect to personal safety deserve serious consideration.”

“..taking health and safety concerns into consideration. A client’s or potential client’s own views with respect to personal health and safety should be given serious consideration in making the placement. For instance, if the potential client requests to be placed based on his or her sex assigned at birth, HUD assumes that the provider will place the individual in accordance with that request, consistent with health, safety, and privacy concerns.”

“..whether a particular housing assignment would ensure health and safety. It is prohibited for such a determination to be based solely on a person’s actual or perceived gender identity or on complaints of other shelter residents when those complaints are based on actual or perceived gender identity. It is likewise prohibited to deny appropriate placement based on a perceived threat to health or safety..”

“..legitimate safety concerns that may arise in any shelter, building, or facility covered by this rule.”

“..eliminate the safety risk and that has available accommodations..”

“…since it would not apply unless the facts and circumstances demonstrated a nondiscriminatory risk to health or safety that could not be eliminated or appropriately mitigated by policy adjustments and physical modifications to buildings and facilities.”

“HUD recognizes a limited exception to accommodating individuals in accordance with the individual’s gender identity when a recipient, subrecipient, owner, operator, manager, or provider identifies a legitimate safety risk that cannot be eliminated or appropriately mitigated”

“keeping a record of when a legitimate safety risk is identified.”

“accommodation is necessary to ensure health and safety. It shall be prohibited for such a determination to be based solely on a person’s actual or perceived gender identity, the complaints of other clients, beneficiaries, or employees when those complaints are based on actual or perceived gender identity, or on an actual or perceived threat to health or safety that can be mitigated in some other way that is less burdensome. In order to avoid unwarranted denials of placement in accordance with an individual’s gender identity, decisions to provide accommodations based on concern for the health and safety of the individual..”

  At no point is the nature of this “threat to health and safety” identified. Epidemic male violence is apparently not only a protected government-sanctioned institution beyond reproach but one which cannot be named. While a male or male-identified transgender client’s “own views with respect to personal safety deserve serious consideration” and his own views with respect to personal health and safety should be given serious consideration in making the placement”, women’s views with respect to their own personal safety are not only disregarded but explicitly prohibited by law: “It is likewise prohibited to deny appropriate placement based on a perceived threat to health or safety..”

Homeless males can identify as female or male and access whichever facility they prefer. Atlanta’s 600-bed Peachtree-Pine Shelter estimated that 5% of the male homeless population is transgender (using the no longer required definition: males who regularly adopt some social cues traditionally associated with females). “Women are allowed to stay in the men’s shelter — because Peachtree-Pine is not supposed to turn anyone away — but they can only stay in the lobby area overnight sitting upright in a chair, said Tony Thomas, the shelter’s spokesperson. So when given the option of sitting in a chair all night or sleeping in a cot, many transwomen will identify and “present” as male, he added.”

According to Mark “Mara” Keisling’s National Center for Trans Equality (NCTE) 49% of homeless transwomen report a history of criminal incarceration. [PDF]

Presumably this measure solely serves the desires of some men to be housed with women. Only a sociopath would suggest a female transgender (FTM) be housed among men. Toronto’s ‘Trans Communities Shelter Access Project’ claims that multiple homeless “transmen” have been gang-raped in men’s shelters: “Although a female-to-male trans person (trans man) might identify themselves as a man… the reality for many is that surgery and hormones are expensive, passing is out of reach, and men’s services are not safe for a trans man who may not pass. If an FtM has not been approved for testosterone, or had a mastectomy, (and even if he has…) then he is at risk for physical, verbal, and sexual assault in men’s dorms/ bathrooms/ and showers. There have been incidents of gang rape toward FtM’s in men’s shelters. Some FtM’s may choose to face these risks in a shelter that validates their identity… but they should not have to. There are no FtM shelters or rape crisis centers, so as men who face (or have faced) sexual assault, spousal abuse, and gender discrimination, there is, as of yet, no place better equipped to meet the needs of FtM’s than women’s services.”

As required by the Administrative Procedure Act this proposed law has been filed with the Federal Register for public comment. HUD is required to respond to issues raised by the public before adopting the law. The deadline is January 19. Comments may be submitted by mail or posted online here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=HUD_FRDOC_0001-4281

Comments must include the name and number of the regulation:

FR–5863–P–01 Equal Access in Accordance With an Individual’s Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs

ID: HUD-2015-0104-0001

You can also view the comments that have been submitted. As of now, 30 comments have been received. 20 have been published. 14 have been discarded due to duplication via (transgender activist) mass mailing campaign. 4 are obviously duplicate mass mailers from transgender activists. 10 are yet unpublished. Only two comments mention the welfare of women and girls.

 

[bolding by me-GM]