The Politically Correct Defense of Gender Identity is Concealing Much Worse

We’re told over and over that it’s purely hypothetical to suppose that any man would ever use gender identity activism or laws to sanction unethical or criminal behavior. As if we were speculating about angels dancing on pinheads.

This is false. We’re having it proved again, this very month.

National Geographic’s gender issue is a case in point. Featured in one of its photo spreads are Alok Vaid-Menon and Cherno Biko.

Vaid-Menon wrote an essay describing little girls as “kinky,” in seeming allusion to the idea that child sexual abuse could be consensual or desired, and you can read it here.

Cherno Biko’s essay appearing to confess to the rape of a trans man, a female living as a man, for the purpose of impregnation is the reason why I first started writing here at FPIW, and you can find links to both versions of that essay here.

Then there’s the women’s march. Except that it’s neither just for women, nor even just about us.

What started as a simple idea has been taken over by a strain of sex industry activism merged with transgender ideology, and summed up flawlessly by the fact that Janet Mock has insisted that the platform include so-called “sex workers’ rights.”

The march platform was in fact changed to call for the liberation of the prostituted from exploitation, and Mock demanded that it be changed back to reflect the political interests of the sex industry. A group representing the interests of sex industry survivors has been banned from the march following this incident.

While I empathize with Mock’s experiences as a young person trafficked in the sex trade, I find it objectionable that, as an adult, Mock has used their media platform to compare child sex trafficking to liberation from slavery. What decent parent would want such a life for their child, any child? What responsible media outlet would allow any other adult victim of child sexual abuse the opportunity to represent such abuse as positive? It’s unfortunate that Mock was groomed by exploitative adults at a young age. It’s also a serious problem that Mock has chosen to be a spokesperson for other abusive adults.

I have no doubt that very few people truly share or endorse the politics of these individuals, particularly their apologies for, or praise of, sexual exploitation. But I wonder, what will it take for those truly concerned with social justice and feminism to take a good look at what they’re endorsing by having these individuals act as movement leaders?

*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

UPDATE: NC Refuses to Repeal HB2

The North Carolina General Assembly has abandoned efforts to repeal HB2, a common sense law that protects the privacy rights and safety of women and children.

The state legislature’s refusal to repeal HB2 comes just days after the public learned that a deal had been struck between the North Carolina General Assembly and the City of Charlotte.

Under the conditions of the deal, the City of Charlotte had agreed to repeal its controversial local ordinance requiring business owners, schools, and other places of public accommodations to allow biological men to use the same locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms as females, provided that the state repeal HB2.

However, while the ink on the deal was still drying, the Charlotte City Council made clear its intention to violate the spirit of the deal by allowing for the possibility of reenacting the city ordinance after the state legislature would have repealed HB2.  The resolution adopted by the City Council states,

“Whereas, in the event that the North Carolina General Assembly grants or restores the authority of the City to enact ordinances on the matters that were subject of the preempted and invalidated ordinances, the City Council could enact new ordinances.”

Thankfully, the North Carolina legislature recognized the deal’s faults and decided to stand with the state’s families and businesses.

HB2 protects the privacy rights of women and children in schools and other government buildings by requiring that individuals use only restrooms and changing facilities consistent with their biological sex.

HB2 also allows private businesses to set the policies for bathrooms and showers in their buildings by preventing local cities from enacting ordinances that violate the rights of business owners.  Likewise, under HB2, business owners who disagree with the notion of sex-segregated bathrooms and showers can still allow biological males to use female facilities.

Unfortunately, many other cities and states (including Washington State) still require schools and businesses to allow biological men to share bathrooms and showers with women.

Breaking News: NC Set to Betray Women and Children

News broke yesterday that the North Carolina General Assembly will begin a special session on Wednesday, December 21, to consider repealing HB 2, a state law that protects the privacy rights of women and children, as well as the freedom of association and property rights of business owners.

The special legislative session is part of a backroom deal between the state legislature and the Charlotte City Council. Provided that the state legislature repeals HB 2 by the end of the year, the city has agreed to repeal a controversial ordinance requiring businesses to allow individuals to use the other biological sex’s locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms.

Unfortunately, this deal isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Once the state repeals HB 2, there will be no remaining legal barriers to stop North Carolina cities from passing ordinances that threaten the privacy and safety of women and children.

Take action by calling and emailing Speaker Tim Moore (Tim.Moore@ncleg.net; (919) 733-3451) and Senate President Pro Tempore, Senator Phil Berger (Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; (919) 733-5708). Let them know you think this is a bad deal that betrays pro-family voters and abandons women and children.

Shoving Men Into Women’s Spaces Isn’t Progress

The day my dad enrolled me in an after school teenage boys’ basketball training program, I cried.

At age 13, I was already 5’11’’ and weighed 125 pounds — an awkward conglomeration of gangly knees, elbows, and a singular dark eyebrow that crept across my forehead like a gluttonous caterpillar. If I was going to be this tall, you might as well put a ball in my hands and see what happens, right?

Everything about the scenario was painful.

In retrospect, my dad had the right idea. He knew that practicing with boys would improve my game, and it did. I made the varsity squad as a sophomore, set a couple school records for shot blocking, and eventually earned a significant scholarship at a small college. I was a pretty good basketball player.

For a girl.

There, I said it. The feminist in me recoils at reading those words, but the truth teller in me can’t help but admit the biological reality that presents, in exaggerated fullness, during high school: there’s an undeniable physical difference between the sexes that cannot be overcome by sheer willpower or wishing.

On my own team, I never lost a set of lines, I finished first in most of the conditioning drills, and worked my tail off to be on the starting squad. But at after school training? Even the C-Team boys were lapping me on the track, beating me down the court, and lifting more than double my maximum efforts in the weight room.

I was overpowered. I felt “less than.”

Why am I telling you all this? I share it because it highlights one of the most prominent challenges so many females experience as they navigate life and especially as they navigate the oh-so-painful world of high school: we walk around with the keen understanding that, in many ways, we are perceived as “less than” our male counterparts. There are certain realms where we know we will have to work twice as hard to exist. There are other realms where we know it’s unlikely we will ever really have a role. Think, for example, of the NBA or the NFL.

Now don’t get me wrong; there are some phenomenal female athletes who can dance circles around men in certain areas. Serena Williams and Diana Nyad come immediately to mind. But as a whole, women innately know that they won’t be respected or validated in certain spheres. Thus, it becomes incredibly important for us to have our own unique qualities and experiences specific to us.

Men and women were created different in function but equal in value. But there’s a power differential in play, and women often end up on the losing side of it. That’s why Title IX came to exist in the first place — to carve out space for women like me to participate and thrive without being bulldozed or eclipsed by men.

But recent history has seen so many of these spaces being erased by pervasive and incredibly foolish gender identity politics that, 99% of the time, only really serve to benefit anatomical males who believe themselves to be female. I was irritated when I read that a 6’6’’ male was given a spot on the women’s basketball team at Mission College in California and that he went on to be named an All-American who led the league in rebounds and helped his team win the championship game. All I could think about was how some poor girl somewhere would not get a chance to play college basketball because someone decided to give her spot to a man.

I rolled my eyes when I read that a transgender man (a biological woman) had given birth to a child, as though this was somehow newsworthy. (Women have been bearing children since the dawn of time. It’s one of the many amazing things we were designed to do.)

And it upset me to hear that President Obama had decreed from on high that women’s homeless shelters (where abused women regularly go to escape men) will now be open to men.

But when I read that a high school in North Carolina had elected a teenage boy as its homecoming queen, I was admittedly surprised by the intensity of the emotional response the news solicited within me.

Gender identity politics are offensive on so many levels. For one thing, the widespread indulging of obvious delusion makes idiots of us all.  In fact, I shudder to think what the history books will say about this modern day retelling of The Emperor’s New Clothes and the seemingly epidemic courage deficit in rightly naming it. But beyond the obvious insult to our intelligence, the trans-agenda is essentially ushering in the erasure of women and obliterating the idea that females have anything unique to contribute to the world.

As previously illustrated, high school can be rough for girls who are struggling to find their place in the greater scheme of things, especially as it relates to the boys around them. In theory, a homecoming queen is supposed to be representative of the best of these girls — a female who navigates life with confidence, kindness, poise, and dignity. Homecoming queen is supposed to be a position to which girls can aspire.

What does it say then, when, of all the girls in the entire high school, none of them are deemed good enough to win the title of homecoming queen? What does it say when the best possible candidate to represent high school girls is actually a high school boy?  Most heartbreaking of all, what does it say about these girls when they choose female erasure for themselves?

The mainstream media covers this story from an angle that celebrates the open-mindedness and compassion of these high school students in their “bold decision” to “affirm and embrace” this boy’s illness. But it’s a shallow celebration, devoid of any wisdom or foresight.

True compassion should never require women to compromise the things that belong to their dignity. True compassion should never require people to compromise reality for fantasy. True compassion should never strip high school girls of one of the very few things that rightly belongs to them in order to give it to a boy.

Tammy Wynette hit the nail on the head when she sang, “Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman.”

It’s especially hard to be a woman when we are no longer legally allowed to clearly define what that means. And it’s going to be even harder when an entire generation of girls has successfully been trained to believe that their erasure is somehow progress.

The day we allow that to happen, we won’t just FEEL like we are “less than.” It will actually be true.

Not on my watch.

Washington School District Pays More Than $14,000 for Transgender Training and Education

Through a public records request fulfilled this month, FPIW has learned that the Snohomish School District made payments totaling $14,100 to Gender Diversity, a Seattle-based group known to advocate transgenderism to children.

The payments were made in exchange for a series of training sessions and consultations, provided by Gender Diversity’s transgender Executive Director Aidan Key.

What Does This Mean for Your Children?

The District’s relationship with Key and Gender Diversity began in December 2014 at Seattle Hill Elementary School, where the entire staff attended a mandatory two-hour training session, entitled, Understanding Gender Identity in Children. The District’s relationship with the group has continued through 2016 with an additional 8 staff trainings and forums, most of which took place shortly before the Snohomish School Board voted to implement a new transgender policy in late June.

children_at_school_8720604364The presentations and trainings centered around this 62-page manifesto, written by the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, National Education Association, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Gender Spectrum, among other groups.  The document lays out the entire game plan for pushing radical new gender policies into a school district.

The presentation argues that schools – not parents – should take on the responsibility of affirming, promoting, and protecting transgender youth. It also discusses what measures the school can take if one or both parents are unwilling to affirm a dysphoric child’s newly chosen gender. You can read the entire report here.

Additional emails found in the public records request fulfillment indicate that the Snohomish School District also arranged meetings for Gender Diversity staff to meet individually with each school board member ahead of the June vote.

Just a week after these meetings, the school board voted 6-0 in favor of opening up all locker rooms, showers, changing facilities, and bathrooms to students of any gender or biological sex.  You can read the entire policy change here.

Why Did We Request These Records?

This public records request was initiated after a group of teachers, administrators, and parents approached FPIW seeking information about the District’s relationship with Gender Diversity. The group claims that the new policies created a hostile work and learning environment for teachers and students in the District who do not agree with its heavy promotion of transgenderism.

The group also expressed concerned that the District may have used money specifically set aside for classroom use to bring this new, politically motivated policy into place. The Snohomish School District’s budget policies appear to do little to reduce these concerns.

Friday, FPIW President Joseph Backholm sent a letter to District Assistant Superintendent Scott Peacock, who initiated nearly all communications between the Snohomish School District and Gender Diversity, outlining these concerns and also offering to facilitate “theological and philosophical sensitivity training,” to assist the District with training sessions on “how to tolerate differences of opinion on these issues without creating a hostile learning or work environment.”

Regardless of one’s political affiliation or beliefs on sensitive topics such as transgenderism, we should all agree that the purpose of public education is to ensure that children can read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide — not to promote controversial political ideologies.

Besides, if public schools are really strapped for cash – so much so that the State Supreme Court would hold the legislature in contempt for failing to give them more money – then it stands to reason that the schools should be more discerning in how they choose to use $14,100 from taxpayers.

What Can You Do About it?

The bottom line is: if you are unhappy with the state of affairs in the Snohomish School District, or in your local school district, the best thing that you can do is work to put a better school board in place. Whether that means running for a seat yourself, or recommending someone you think would be a good candidate, we are here to help.  FPIW’s hosts campaign schools and trainings for those interested in holding public office. If we, as a movement, are not willing to step in and run to win these races, we will continue to watch the public school system indoctrinate children with dangerous and harmful ideologies.

Click here to recommend someone to run for school board. We’ll reach out to them.

If you’d like to voice your concerns about the policy, district use of taxpayer funds, or to ask questions about the District’s relationship with organizations like Gender Diversity, you can contact the Snohomish School District’s Assistant Superintendent Scott Peacock at (360) 563-7284, or email him at Scott.Peacock@sno.wednet.edu.

Contact information for Snohomish School District Board Members:

Jay Hagen, School Board President

360-668-4635

jay.hagen@sno.wednet.edu


Leah Hughes-Anderson, School Board Vice-President

425-308-1252

leah.hughes-anderson@sno.wednet.edu


Shaunna Ballas, Board Member

206-715-0283

shaunna.ballas@sno.wednet.edu


David Johnston, Board Member

360-568-0228

David.johnston@sno.wednet.edu


Josh Seek, Board Member

425-377-2466

Josh.Seek@sno.wednet.edu


Dr. Kent Kultgen, Superintendent of Schools

Took over on July 1, following School Board vote

360-563-7280

kent.kultgen@sno.wednet.edu

Donald Trump Could Make This One Problem Go Away Today

by Silence*

trumpIf you’ve found yourself outraged by the story of Donald Trump walking in on beauty pageant contestants in their changing room, while they were undressed, including minor girls, consider this:

Donald Trump could make this story go away tomorrow if he came out as a trans woman or non-binary and, in our current media climate, no one would ever bring it up again.

Why would it be news that a woman had walked into a women’s dressing room and seen other women naked?

Gender identity laws make just that much sense.

Meet Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer working hard to ensure that any man can walk in on women anywhere, just because he feels womanly sometimes. Whatever it means to “feel like a woman.”

“When pushed on the reality that there are no public safety risks to extending legal protections to trans people, anti-trans lawmakers have made clear that the core of the problem is just the very existence of trans people in single-sex spaces. There is, they contend, a privacy interest for non-transgender people in not seeing and not being seen by a trans person.

Here’s that last sentence in plain English: There is, they contend, a privacy interest for women in not seeing and not being seen by men, and vice versa.

Yes, I do contend that. I don’t want men walking in on me undressing without my permission. I don’t want to see men taking their clothes off unexpectedly. I don’t want laws protecting bodily privacy to be enforceable everywhere except bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, women’s prisons, OB/GYN offices, in the administration of urine tests, or during strip and pat-down searches where female staff could be forced to search biological males, or vice versa.

OB/GYN offices? Oh, yes. To see how far Strangio’s vision and that of the transgender movement diverges from most people’s understanding of the right to bodily privacy, consider this passage from the Lambda Legal briefing on the Equality Act, which has 178 cosponsors in the House and Senate.

“The Equality Act does not alter the general reach and applicability of the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense. However, when a BFOQ is used to justify employment or training decisions on the basis of sex, individuals must be recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity. It is important to note that courts have deemed very few BFOQs to be permissible in practice.”

That sounds so reasonable. Here’s what it means: if a man says he is a woman and he works in a medical office, he has to be treated by everyone on staff as if he is a woman. This includes when a female patient at an OB/GYN office requests only female staff for her examinations, or asks for a female chaperone. Here’s a health care industry perspective on some of the very few BFOQs allowed by the courts.

“For example, although the BFOQ defense will not serve as a valid justification for an airline to hire only women as flight attendants to comply with male customer preferences, the privacy interests of psychiatric patients can justify a BFOQ for personal hygiene attendants of the same sex,” [Kimani Paul-Emile, JD, associate professor of law at Fordham University School of Law] says. “To this end, courts have held that for certain workers, such as nursing assistants, hospital delivery room nursing staff, and others involved in assisting individuals with dressing, disrobing, or bathing, gender may be a legitimate BFOQ for accommodating patients’ privacy or modesty interests.”

To get back to the beginning, Chase Strangio’s vision of the law means that when a female patient asks for a female personal hygiene attendant, it would be discriminatory to refuse care from a man who believes that he is a woman. Strangio and the rest of the transgender movement would like this to be the law of the land, and they have no problem with shaming even young girls who dissent.

I don’t know if all the Democrats who co-sponsored the Equality Act realize that this is the consequence of a policy that they have promised they will pass into law if they get the chance. Yet it constitutes an invasion of women’s privacy beyond even the apparently voyeuristic intentions of one, Donald Trump, who is also in favor of ending sex-segregated spaces through gender identity laws.

My friends on the left want women to be able to say no to unwanted invasions of our privacy, as well as to any unwanted touching. What to make of a policy that would allow men to walk into our changing rooms and strip in front of us? What to think about congressional Democrats telling women that they have to accept men helping them with their bathing and intimate care needs?

Have Democrats read the testimony on transgender prisoners in the UK that was submitted to a parliamentary inquiry on transgender equality by the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists?

“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…”

What do Democrats think about women in prison having to bunk with violent men who think they’re women (graphic content), or judges letting off male sex offenders because they’re now “women,” as can happen in the UK and other countries with expansive gender identity recognition laws?

To look at how it would go in the US if we adopted the same gender identity laws as the UK has, let’s take the case of the recently convicted Kryzie King, who brutally beat, starved, and tortured a 4-year-old boy to death in 2014, when Myls Dobson’s father was forced to leave the boy in King’s care. King is listed by the Department of Corrections as male, and was housed in a men’s detention facility while awaiting trial. But King claims to be a transgender woman. Here’s a headline reporting on the case: Woman charged in death of Myls Dobson said she ‘tried to show him the love’.

Kryzie King is male, and the State of New York knows it. Yet state employees and media reporting on the case have had to refer to King as if he were a woman, and leaving out significant details regarding his past. New York’s gender identity laws demand that everyone go along with this or be at risk of being charged with discrimination, possibly subject to fines of up to $250,000.

Right now, to the chagrin of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, King won’t be able to change his legal sex to female while incarcerated. Will this one protection for female prisoners in New York State be removed if the Equality Act is passed, or if court decisions render biological sex meaningless in the law? A 2009 study of 332 transgender male inmates in California determined that a total of 49 percent were incarcerated for crimes against persons, including the 20 percent of the study group who were registered sex offenders.

Do my friends on the left really want Kryzie King, who accepted a plea deal for a sentence of 22 years to life, to be able to change his legal sex markers and serve his time in a women’s prison? That’s something that even the State of New York, which has some of the most extreme gender identity policies in the nation, stopped short of allowing.

Kryzie King says he is a woman. Who are any of us to deny it if federal law insists that it’s discriminatory to claim otherwise. What does it matter if the women he would be housed with don’t want him showering with them, neither wanting to see him naked or to be seen naked by him? Will there be as much sympathy for these women as there is today for Donald Trump’s alleged beauty pageant victims?

I suspect Chase Strangio’s sympathies would begin and end with Kryzie King, with nothing spared for the women affected by him. Is that the true consensus of the Democratic Party and its members?

If it happens to be an awkward time for Democrats to bring this up, too bad. Women have been trying to warn them about these problems with gender identity laws for years and they have turned around and thrown us out of their politics for our troubles.

Not that it’s anything brand new.  If the men in the Democratic Party really cared about women, where are the charges filed against PR executive Trevor Fitzgibbon, whose firm closed down over widespread allegations of sexual harassment and assault? Maybe the women who spoke out against him know all too well what would happen to their career prospects if they took a liberal man to court for workplace misconduct. Transgender activism didn’t invent misogyny on the left, after all.

The question remains, will they listen before we have to come up with millions of stories about being assaulted by men who think they’re women, or will the incidents we’ve seen already be enough?

Women aren’t irrationally phobic of transgender people. We are afraid of men, because many of us have seen them behave badly towards us in private. There’s no evidence that men who think they’re women are any different than the rest. Democrats should stop pretending they don’t know what we mean, even as they ride to soaring heights in the polls on the strength of our outrage about male violence. That’s not okay with me.


*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

Gender Warriors Advocating Forced Genital Amputation of Children

by Silence*

Trigger warning: Zack Ford

Zack Ford’s recent post at Think Progress, where he comes out strongly in favor of sterilizing and/or amputating the genitals of minor children in response to the American College of Pediatricians, is so reflexively contrarian, I worry about what would happen if the ACP released a statement opposing jumping off cliffs.

Ford is the LGBT Editor at ThinkProgress.org, affiliated with the highly influential Center for American Progress. Think Progress is shared widely on Capitol Hill, and is a commonly-read news source for anyone working on the political left. Whether you’ve heard of the site or not, when an editor at Think Progress feels comfortable promoting chemical castration for misfit children, you can be sure that they’re speaking from within the political comfort zone of the highest ranks of the Democrat Party and its allies.

Putting aside the uncommon phrases and words you may see in stories about so-called ‘transgender children’, a large number of gender warriors ignore the fact that a common side effect of putting a young child on “reversible” puberty blockers, and then giving them high doses of cross-sex hormones throughout their adolescent development window, is lifetime sterility. That’s before anyone goes under the knife, though cosmetic genital surgery is being pushed at ever-earlier ages as well.

Transitioning teens are even being chemically sterilized in front of an adoring nation on YouTube and on reality TV. It’s a spectacle of depravity for entertainment unparalleled since the castrati sang to packed opera houses in Europe. In cruelty, it matches the British government’s chemical castration of gay WWII codebreaker, Alan Turing.

When you watch these “heartwarming” transgender child stories — the ones where the kids look like they’re 11 at the age of 14 because they’ve been on hormone blockers for years — of parents giving their children cross-sex hormones, you’re watching the likely chemical sterilization of a child as an entertainment. If you like to think of yourself as a nice liberal, you probably watch these videos to feel good about your own broadmindedness.

It’s as if Toddlers and Tiaras was co-ed and gave the pageant winner a free tubal ligation or vasectomy. Pass the popcorn!

Meanwhile, Zack Ford and the transgender activist movement seem to be suggesting that all the weird little kids need to be encouraged to have their gonads destroyed before they’re old enough to even try them out.

Here’s a seven-year-old who seems to be transitioning because he wanted a Hello Kitty backpack and had a history of liking the colors pink and purple. This sounds like punishing children’s fashion tastes with castration.

Here’s a six-year-old boy who likes Barbie and wearing dresses. Because no one wants to hurt his self-esteem by telling him that what he’s wearing is wrong, they’re prepping him for body modification as if his entire body is wrong. Why are clothing choices a medical problem?

Here’s a teenager who seems to be transitioning because she wanted to get out of shaving her legs. Why does she have to shave her legs? Why is the better option a possible lifetime of hormone therapy that makes the doctors for the former East Germany’s Olympics team look like hobbyists?

There’s a four-year-old being socially transitioned and prepared for medicalized sex alteration in Australia because … why? They are four years old. Who is standing up for this child to say that their guardians and doctors need to respect their bodily integrity?

Ford acknowledges the issue of permanent sterility but seems unworried by it because these children might otherwise look “wrong” when they grow up. This is a reason both sinister and shallow. Ford says that no families are consenting to irreversible procedures. This is wrong, but it isn’t as though he seems to care. He dismisses the question this way:

“ACP wants to force trans kids to go through the wrong puberty, which would guarantee changes that could intensify their gender dysphoria, to avoid the risk of one possible side effect if they don’t. It’s actually proof of the double standard that Serano outlined — that it’s okay for a transgender kid to go through the wrong puberty, but not a cisgender kid.”

The “wrong puberty,” in this case, means not attaining reproductive maturity at all. This is serious, where Ford and his compatriots seem utterly dismissive. It should be frightening to parents, educators, and medical professionals, who might have thought that surely no one would be cavalier about minors being denied the possibility of ever having their own children. To Ford, this is just “one possible side effect.”

So it’s worth thinking about what Ford means when he refers to transgender kids. Many people react to this term as though we’re talking about a newly discovered sex of person, or as though the word transgender meant a different species. If there were such a physical classification, there would be a lab test for it. There isn’t one, unless children’s self-reported dissatisfaction with the prospect of growing up now counts as a modern scientific revelation.

Instead, the majority of children who go through what has been classed as gender dysphoria, somewhere between 60 to 90 percent of them, once stopped identifying as the opposite sex. But according to the study Zack Ford quotes, the “best outcomes” for children with gender dysphoria, or extreme unhappiness with their expected social roles, come from hormone treatments and surgical sexual transition. In other words, he mainly means to class these children as transsexuals.

Yes, Zack Ford is pushing the idea that there are transsexual children who urgently require what are known as sex changes because they are otherwise doomed to unhappiness. Instead of suggesting treatment for what sounds like depression, transgender ideologues want kids on hormones. Though cross-sex hormones won’t give a person an alternate reproductive system, and “sex change” or “gender confirmation” surgeries can’t change sex. These treatments can damage or remove your gonads, but not give you new ones. Surgeons can remove your genitals, but replacing them is a work in progress.

I was a weird little kid once. So was Rupert Everett, and here’s what he said about that, “I really wanted to be a girl. Thank God the world of now wasn’t then, because I’d be on hormones and I’d be a woman. After I was 15 I never wanted to be a woman again.”

Statistically, Rupert Everett represents the most likely outcome for children with gender dysphoria: they grow out of it. The majority of them used to grow up to be as satisfied with their bodies as anyone else, before they began to be socially transitioned and put on treatments that block the adolescent hormone surges that act to mature the brain as well as the body.

Or too frequently, transitioning children have a condition on the autism spectrum, and they are often girls whose social delays and sensory integration problems make them feel like they’re failures at performing feminine social roles. Sometimes these young people are told lies in their so-called support groups, like that taking testosterone can grow male genitalia for biological females. When you fit in as badly at school as many autistic young people do, I can see wanting to believe that someone can give you a treatment that will fix it.

Now the misfit kids are too often being recruited and groomed at school and over social media to seek genital amputation and sterilization. Some of them are being recruited and groomed by therapists and other medical professionals. A child may end up surrounded by adults who are now forbidden by law to try to help them overcome discomfort with social expectations or their bodies, forbidden to oppose anyone encouraging them down a path of transsexual medicalization.

After an amputation or extraction of the gonads, someone who’s had a full course of transsexual medical treatment is likely to need a lifetime of urgent medical intervention.

Zack Ford writes of avoiding extreme medical intervention as “privileging” one type of person over another, as if it were discriminatory to allow puberty to take its normal, healthy course.

These children aren’t a new sex, they are girls and boys who are often being neutered, if not, groomed from a young age to seek medical de-sexing. How long will the manufacture of new labels for these children hide that from view?


*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

The Shakedown of Chef John Howie

 

A popular chef got cooked last week.  By the tolerance mob.

Chef John Howie owns a number of Seattle area restaurants and is also the chef for the Seattle Seahawks.  By all account he’s a really decent guy; generous and active in the community. But isn’t that kind of what you’d expect from the guy preparing Russell Wilson’s food?

In addition to being a decent guy, Chef Howie made a modest contribution earlier this year to the Just Want Privacy campaign in Washington State.

Just Want Privacy sought to repeal a dangerous new law that gives men the legal right to be present in a women’s bathroom, locker room, spa, or changing facility simply by declaring themselves to be female.

The chef was apparently part of the more than 70% of Washingtonians who believe it is problematic to take away the right to privacy women and children have long enjoyed in private spaces.

Probably because he is visible and active in the community, last week the Seattle Times and others from the LGBT mob decided to make an example out of him.

Capture

A Seattle Times food columnist—of all things—decided to write a post about Chef Howie’s contribution.

Why now?  Who knows.

But when you’re in the business of trying to ruin the lives of people who think differently than you, there truly is no time like the present.

The story quoted Chef Howie saying some really reasonable things that almost no one disagrees with. “Sex offenders scare the living daylights out of me,” he told the Times. “I think pedophiles can take advantage of this.”

Of course this is true.

But none of that matters anymore because “equality” means that women have to allow men who believe they are women equal access to their body.

Notwithstanding the bumper-sticker, the mob has no interest in “coexisting” with people who are different than them.

They are here to accept your surrender.

SO, within twenty-four hours, Chef Howie had created a video recanting his previous statement.

The video was quickly distributed by a number of local LGBT activists groups including the Seattle Times.

You really need to watch the video.

We’ve all seen statements written by terrorists that were read by hostages. The similarities are inescapable.  You kind of expect there to be a rainbow flag and a guy in a mask holding a knife standing behind him.

An obviously shaken Howie opened with an apology. “I’m sorry to the people that I have harmed or negatively affected with my words or my actions.”

Stating an opinion about privacy in bathrooms is now apparently harmful all by itself.

The chef promised to never support another effort to protect women’s privacy again and concluded by assuring the audience that, “I am reaching out to several leaders in the LGBT community so they can help me to understand their challenges so that I can help them in the future.”

Translation, “Yes, I’ll give you money when you ask for it.”

Everyone understands what happened.  They shook him down.

A guy doesn’t say one thing to a newspaper and then—within 24 hours—publish a video saying the exact opposite because he had a friendly chat with a buddy over a beer that caused him to reconsider his position.

The path to avoid the wrath of the mob was well planned and he took it.  Who knows, you and I might have done the same under the circumstances, but that doesn’t mean it’s not obvious and concerning.

The statement might have been more believable if it hadn’t contained the favorite talking points of the campaigns opposed to women’s privacy.  “I was motivated by facts not fear.”

If John Howie wrote his statement on his own then I’m John Wayne. Pilgrim.

The truth is, today’s social justice warriors have become modern day witch hunters.

Like the witch hunters in 17th century Salem, they have cornered the market on truth and consequently progressed beyond the need to listen.  With respect to issues of sexuality, marriage, and gender, views other than their own don’t deserve respect.

Other views can only be explained by ignorance or hate.  If you prove that you have been “educated” by recanting your beliefs, then they will have mercy.

Otherwise, your hate will be dealt with.

The irony of using totalitarian tactics to fight for tolerance is lost on them because their motives are good and the righteousness of their cause is beyond dispute.

Just like other witch hunters, they know God (or whatever non deistic life force entity they have chosen to believe in, or not) is on their side.

Once the bad guys have been eliminated, children will once again play safely in the neighborhoods, flowers will bloom, and the glaciers will heal.

Of course none of it is true, but the religious fervor with which they believe it is true means we have to deal with it.

Chef Howie was spared his economic life because he recanted, but others have refused to recant their beliefs and suffered the consequences.

Brendan Eich was a co-founder of Mozilla, but was forced out of his job as CEO of the company because of a contribution he made to a campaign in support of natural marriage in that state.

Kelvin Cochran was fired from his job as Fire Chief of Atlanta because he wrote a book on his personal time about biblical manhood that included his beliefs that homosexuality was not biblical.

Barronelle Stutzman continues her legal battle against the state of Washington because she refuses to recant her belief that she should not be compelled to decorate a same-sex wedding.

They don’t threaten people’s physical lives, just their economic life.  But the tactic is identical to how Jihadi’s control those in dhimmitude.  “Do as I say, or else…”

Yes, we can all sympathize with the Chef.

He clearly remembers a time when Americans had the right to express themselves publicly without fear of visits from strangers bringing threats.

But we’ve progressed.

So now he pays for protection.

For everyone else, this can be a lesson.  It can either be a lesson to keep our heads down and make sure we don’t offend our masters.  Or, it could be a lesson that it’s time to get together and tell the bully to go pound sand.

If we let them fight us alone every time, they’ll be happy to control us, tell us what we can say and what we can do, and shake financial contributions out of us whenever they decide its necessary.

Or we can decide that the right to work and live according to our beliefs, not someone else’s, is worth getting together and fighting for.

Making Homeless Women Pay for the Left’s Self-Righteous ‘Values’

by Silence*

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is preparing to impose a mandate next month that will require homeless shelters to provide admittance based only on gender identity.

As reported by The Hill, this effort is being made in favor of ending protections for sex-segregated group shelters for the homeless:

“Transgender women are women regardless of whether they were born male … We, obviously, need to protect women who have been sexually abused,” David Stacy, government affairs director at the Human Rights Campaign said. “But if we don’t treat people consistently with their gender identity, then a woman who was abused by her boyfriend could be housed with a transgender man who looks like a man and has a beard.”

Here are several extreme assumptions you must accept for this statement to make sense:

  • That transgender people usually “pass” as the opposite sex.
  • That there exist no biological women with facial hair or “masculine” appearances except for women (trans men) who’ve been on hormone therapy.
  • That housing transgender women with biological females is somehow safe for women.
  • That housing transgender men with biological males is somehow safer for transgender men, who are biologically female.

These assumptions, however, are generally invalid. Here’s why.

First, most people who transition as adults don’t pass. Even if your friends are being nice to you. If you have time to kill, you can read about “passing privilege,” which is a supposed privilege a transgender person gets when they are assumed by others to be the opposite biological sex. For a trans woman, this means no one realizes they’re male. Not only don’t most transgender people pass as the opposite sex, it’s considered transphobic and bigoted to assume that they should.

Whatever you may have been told, transgender advocates don’t believe that transgender people should have to try and look like the opposite sex in order to be accepted as that sex in every way. In the words of their supporters, they want women and girls to get over the discomfort of seeing male genitalia in our locker rooms, so much so that they’ve reclassified our complaints about their presence as hate speech. They want us to accept the nudity of a “range of bodies that might not fit the cisgender ideal” wherever same-sex nudity is accepted.

In other words, what the transgender movement really wants is for males not to have to bother imitating women when they want to walk into a women’s facility.

Second, there are a lot of women who don’t look stereotypically feminine. Maybe they’re tall, don’t wear makeup, wear heavy farm or work clothes, have short hair, or have a medical condition that causes excess facial hair. It didn’t used to be a public policy issue when they got hassled, though they did. Transgender activists bring them up as if the point of these policies was concern for women. Unfortunately, the relentless focus on expanding male access to women has only raised suspicions against women who don’t look stereotypically feminine.

Third, all transgender women are biologically male. It’s as safe to force women into shared housing with them as it is to force women into shared housing with any other male. Resistance to this isn’t an overblown fear of transgender people. It’s a sensible fear of common male violence and voyeurism. Every parent who’s sent their daughter to prom, every woman or girl who’s had a man stare down her shirt in public, understands.

A gender identity shelter policy in Canada already allowed a male sex predator, Christopher Hambrook, to sexually assault women at two different shelters after two prior convictions for sexually assaulting a woman and a girl. Canada’s policies allowed 53-year-old Stefonknee Wolscht (formerly Paul), to take his sick age-play fetish (Warning: offensive content) into a women’s homeless shelter after he fell on hard times (after leaving and threatening his former wife and seven children).

The transgender activism community is well aware of all of it. They have stacked the political and media deck by labeling negative examples like this as hate speech against trans people, not an accurate report of male violence against women that was a foreseeable consequence of their policies.

But you don’t have to cross the border for worrying stories.

Just this July, in Oregon, Isabel Rosa Araujo claims to have gotten a “transmisogynist” homeless woman “banhammered” from a women’s shelter for objecting to Araujo’s presence. Araujo, name aside, is neither a woman nor Latino. A white man, formerly known as Phillip Vincent Haskins-Delici, Araujo has previously admitted to hitting his own mother while living with her and has recently written on Facebook about assaulting two different homeless men in recent months.

Araujo has posted recent photos of himself wearing a dog collar with long, metal spikes, posing with guns and knives, and sporting a “Die Cis Scum” tattoo. This June, he posted a rant about “cis gay scumbags,” talking about gay male politicians, and a line drawing of a girl reading a book titled, “HOW TO KILL TRANS-PHOBIC F***ERS.”

“Izzy Hell Araujo,” formerly Ahuviya Harel (Warning: offensive content), formerly Phillip Vincent Haskins-Delici, is a “woman,” as far as the Obama administration is concerned. Araujo has the legal right to get women kicked out of women’s shelters if they complain that he makes them uncomfortable because he’s obviously a man. Look at some of what else I found posted on his social media profile and tell me how little you’d have to care about homeless women to make them share a shower with him.

Grouped Photos

Araujo

What will it take before liberals prioritize women’s safety? I wonder.

Fourth, transgender men are female and it’s as safe to put them into shared housing with lots of men as it is to put any other women into shared housing with men.

The transgender rights movement has known that women who live as men are in danger in all-male homeless shelters since at least 2003, as shared in the report, “Transitioning Our Shelters,” by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute:

“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 (female-to-male) 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. … FtM’s need women’s services to open their doors and their policies.”

Yet the transgender policy community continues to tell transitioning women that they are protected by “male privilege” from being treated like any other woman.

That’s not true. Transitioned women won’t be in danger because of transphobia in men’s shelters, but rather misogyny. They’ll be in danger because men will see them as sexual objects in ways that they won’t see other males. Hormone treatments can’t fix that and the transgender movement doesn’t care enough about their safety to be honest with them.

The transgender activists’ response to this problem so far has been that women’s shelters should let in everyone who says they should be there. Now they’re talking as if transgender men, who are female, should be required to stay in men’s shelters. Either way, homeless women’s safety and privacy are at risk.

All the cost and burden of this policy is shouldered by destitute women who need a safe place to sleep, and women’s charities that rarely have enough resources to meet the need.

All the rewards go to Democrats who support these policies, along with liberal advocates like the ACLU or the Human Rights Campaign. They get praise for standing at the leading edge of social justice policy. Big business uses this banner to cheaply and hypocritically blunt public criticism from the left. Fading celebrities use boycotts over transgender inclusion to gain popularity. They can be celebrated for pushing to end single-sex facilities without having to donate to improve or expand shelter for the homeless, or making men’s shelters safer for males who don’t conform to sex stereotypes.

How did this happen? Why do so many news stories claim that these policies have been in place for years with no problems, when it they were hardly discussed before the last two years? If I’m telling the truth, why aren’t the women’s shelters up in arms about this? Why aren’t the women’s organizations speaking out?

The answers are related. It seems to be about money.

The 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) contained a little-discussed provision requiring all organizations and local governments accepting some of its hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to offer access to services based on gender identity. Policies were very quietly put in place across the nation — and at organizations that take VAWA money, like the YMCA — requiring access to sex-segregated facilities to be based on gender identity.

After seeing the Obama administration threaten school districts and state governments with losses of federal funding, witnessing the silencing that goes on, women’s secular anti-violence and shelter networks fully surrendered. Now they can sign as many letters as they want to saying yes to these policies, but they can’t say no to them, either.

If the women’s shelters have to pick between helping some women and occasionally letting in a violent man like Phillip Vincent Haskins-Delici, or having to close their doors and help no one, who can blame them? They’re acting under duress. As are the women’s nonprofits, who now face a philanthropic community fully committed to spending big money on transgender politics.

Think on this: When a person can’t say no, she can’t mean yes.

Homeless women can’t say no to this. The shelters that serve them can’t say no to it. The women’s groups who usually advocate for them can’t say no to their funders and political allies.

Please, stop making us say yes.


Note from the Author:

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

Federal Judge Blocks Obama Bathroom Mandate

 

A federal judge in Texas has issued an order blocking the enforcement of the Obama Administration’s federal action forcing schools to open locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms for students, regardless of their biological status.

Earlier this summer, 13 states sued the Obama administration after its Education and Justice Departments had told schools to comply with the “guidance” or risk federal funding.  It appears, for the time being, that that issue is moot; however, it is expected that the Obama Administration will appeal the ruling.

The judge cited the government’s failure to give the public an opportunity to comment as his justification for the block.  The judge also took an opportunity to look at the intent of federal non-discrimination laws, arguing in his decision that “the plain meaning of the term sex meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth,” and not transgender students, as the Obama Administration has tried to interpret.

This ruling means that schools will not be in jeopardy of losing federal funding this fall if they implement policies to protect students’ privacy and safety.  You can read the Press Release from Texas Values here.

We’ll keep you updated on this story, and through a potential appeals process, here at FPIW.org and on our Facebook page.