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.

There Was a Certain Rape: A Look Inside the Transgender Movement

by Silence

For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I can’t tell you who I am. 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.

Yet, I’ve known for a while that questioning the official narrative of transgender activism (a cause championed wholeheartedly and without question by nearly everyone on the left) can get you blacklisted from media and political work.

People I thought of as friends and colleagues have turned into thought police, and anyone who dares to question the official line is intimidated into capitulation and silence — or forced to find another line of work. So I’m writing you like this, here, to ask you to think carefully about the public safety impacts of the story you’re about to read.

On March 26th, 2016, there was a certain rape. Let me be more specific: a prominent transgender (born male) activist raped another transgender (born female) person and bragged about it on the Internet.

Both the details of the event and the larger circumstances matter, because the truth matters.

Transgender activist and admitted rapist Cherno Biko is still making appearances on behalf of the transgender movement.

Cherno Biko is a transgender woman. As Co-Chair of the Young Women’s Advisory Council for New York City, Biko is deeply embedded in a movement that strongly invests in forcing all public speech to contort itself around the idea that transgender women, who are biologically male, are instead biologically female and always have been.

In New York City, where Biko lives, it is a crime, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, to intentionally refer to a transgender person in a way that causes offense.

Transgender ideology itself hinges on the assumption that a person is transitioning to live under gender roles normally prescribed to the opposite sex. The public has been led to believe that ‘transgender’ is another word for ‘transsexual’, someone who has an overwhelming compulsion to have a full surgical transition. But this is false.

Here’s what happened:

During what started as consensual intercourse, Biko told the victim – whom we’ll call “J” – that he wanted to get “J” pregnant with his children. Biko then removed his condom, and continued the act over the victim’s objection. (“J” is a transgender man, but otherwise biologically and anatomically female.)

“To be honest, I’m relieved that I can now speak directly to these issues, from the perspective of both a victim and abuser,” Biko wrote afterwards. This expressed relief was short-lived. That sentence was removed, and, as of July 28, read as follows:

“As I began to learn more about consent I discovered that under [New York State] law it is impossible for a person who is mentally unstable to give consent. I struggled with this idea because it leaves no space for varying degrees of mental illness or for people who experience mental illness but have never been diagnosed like myself.”

In a space of days, Biko moved from admitting culpability for a serious crime to playing the victim.

Here’s Why It’s Rape

In this case, a biologically male person raped a biologically female person, for the purpose of forcible impregnation. Even Chase Strangio of the ACLU, notorious for stating that there’s no such a thing as a male or female body, knows what kind of bodies I’m talking about when I say that someone with a penis pulled off a condom and tried to get someone else pregnant during heterosexual intercourse. What types of bodies get pregnant? Everyone knows.

Transgender dogma is such that Biko’s victim, “J,” has been conditioned to believe that, although they were born female, they have acquired male privilege over biologically and anatomically male individuals like Cherno Biko, and are therefore expected to protect them in cases such as this.

But even if “J” pressed charges, knowing the nature of laws regarding transgender speech in New York City, how could a prosecutor clearly describe what happened to a judge and jury? Transgender individuals often strongly object to using either medically accurate terms for their body parts or even veiled references such as “male genitalia.”

Even in the event of a conviction, presuming that Biko’s official documents inaccurately list his sex as female, New York State laws would likely require housing Biko in a female correctional facility.

According to the Correctional Association of New York, of the women in prison in the state, “three-quarters have histories of severe physical abuse by an intimate partner during adulthood, and 82% suffered serious physical or sexual abuse as children.” Is a person with intact penis and testes and a penchant for forcible impregnation really a suitable cell or shower mate for the already-abused women held in New York State facilities?

In the likely event that nothing changes and Biko continues to roam free, what will this mean practically? The victim of Biko’s crime admitted that Biko was unable to pay $80 for potential HIV exposure. What if Biko were to lose his housing and require the services of a homeless shelter? The Obama administration has declared that all formerly single-sex crisis shelters must accept individuals on the basis of gender identity, and has made clear that questioning such claims opens shelters to civil rights complaints.

Is a person with intact male genitalia and a penchant for forcible impregnation a suitable women’s dormitory resident, when the other women there have nowhere to go?

Men can be raped, too. Yet, a male body cannot be subject to impregnation.

These simple, commonly-understood facts have been wholly uncontroversial until recently. When and why did it become taboo to look at a situation like this and accurately describe it?

When transgender woman Dana McCallum raped his wife after being served with divorce papers, everyone seemed most interested in making sure the word “male” was never attached to the perpetrator. Former colleagues issued no statements and McCallum’s writing was scrubbed from the feminist media site where it had previously appeared.

Will Biko’s name and work disappear just as quietly? Is that even possible, given his status as a media darling?

On March 31, 2016, Biko spoke at the White House for Trans Day Of Visibility. On June 14, 2016, Biko attended The United State of Women, hosted by President Obama, and First Lady Michelle Obama. That is, Biko attended two White House appearances, and not his first, since remorselessly raping “J.”

Maybe “J” is worried about Biko’s well being. Though maybe “J” also knows, like I do, that speaking out against prominent transgender activists often brings an avalanche of death threats, rape threats, and threats of economic retribution.

Will the transgender movement ever wake up to the consequences of the stifling silence they’ve created, now that a self-described rapist has represented them twice this year at the White House?

To date, the transgender community doesn’t seem to want accountability. They want problems to go away as quickly and quietly as possible. When Allison Woolbert was outed as a former child rapist under Woolbert’s birth name, Dennis, the transgender community acted largely as if it had never happened. Woolbert’s prominence in anti-violence initiatives prompted very little soul-searching.

When Chad Sevearance-Turner, the lead organizer of the Charlotte, North Carolina, effort to end sex-segregated private spaces in the city, was revealed to be a registered sex offender, he, too, was simply quietly retired from that campaign, as reported in the Charlotte Observer.

According to the transgender movement, the State of New York, and the Obama administration, Biko is a woman, who can be in a state of undress anywhere that any biological female can be in a state of undress. According to gender identity laws ending sex-segregated private spaces, even Sevearance-Turner has only to declare himself a woman to be allowed to undress in female-only spaces.

In New York City, where Biko lives, it’s a potential violation of the human rights laws to publicly mention a transgender person’s former name. Will Biko be able to change his name again and claim this protection?

Gender identity policy changes that go beyond issues of preventing housing and employment discrimination aren’t mainly (and never were) about bathrooms. Bathrooms are simply where the legal definition of “same-sex” collides most often with the paths of the general public.

But promoters of the transgender policy agenda insist that it’s wrong to discuss the possibility that predators could misuse its proposals. They’ve done this so effectively within the policy and media elite that the only questions now come from the right.

They’re the same people who will read this article about a brutal rape, and complain that the real violence is that Biko has been “misgendered” by being referred to as male, just so the facts could be clearly communicated.

This doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. Let’s just promote common sense.

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Transgender Bathroom Mandate

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked a 4th Circuit Court order mandating that schools nationwide open their locker rooms, showers, and bathroom facilities to students based upon their gender identity claims.  The Virginia school board that had originally been struck down by the Circuit Court is still planning to appeal to the Supreme Court to overrule the order entirely.

This is a huge — albeit, temporary — victory for privacy and safety rights for students, as well as state and local sovereignty, in the United States.

To follow the conversation, follow FPIW on Twitter @FPIW.

Macy’s Employee Fired After Questioning Man in Women’s Bathroom

 

Javier Chavez, a Macy’s employee in Queens, New York, has been fired over his questioning of a man entering the women’s bathroom.

A concerned customer and her daughter had reported that a man had entered into the women’s bathroom.  They sought out Chavez, the store’s Senior Detective, to check on the situation and ask the man to leave the women’s bathroom.  Upon being questioned about his intentions, the man informed Chavez that he was really a transgendered woman, and promptly reported the Senior Detective’s “insensitivity” to the store’s managers.

The store’s management sided with the man who granted himself access to the women’s bathroom and fired their 26-year detective, Javier Chavez, on the grounds that he had broken the company’s policy of inclusion.

Chavez says that he was never told about the store’s policy that allowed men to utilize women’s facilities.  Initially, Chavez was suspended in the incident.  Even after informing the managers that he would submit to and abide by the policy, he was terminated after disclosing that his beliefs about sex and gender were faith-based.

“After my employer learned that I was a practicing Catholic, with religious concerns about this policy, I was terminated because of my religion, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.”

This is not the first time Macy’s has fired an employee over issues with men in designated women’s areas.  In 2011, Natalie Johnson, an employee at a San Antonio-area Macy’s was fired after blocking a transgendered person from using the women’s dressing rooms.

We’re living in a paradoxical time where our society will stand up, applaud, and affirm the speech and beliefs of some while standing against the beliefs and speech of others, and punishing those who object.  A major principle of the transgender movement is diversity and acceptance. However, it appears there is little acceptance by the LGBT community of those who hold beliefs which divert from their own.

Facilities laws being implemented all over our country aim to allow individuals to utilize whatever locker room, shower, or restroom they want without question, fear, or discomfort.  Again, it’s a paradox: our culture is passionately and adamantly against rape culture, as we should be.  Yet, we pass bills that invite biological men into women’s private areas.

If our nation really had respect for women and children, we’d do more than get #yesallwomen trending.  If we actually cared, we would fight these laws that directly and negatively impact the privacy of our women and children.

AG Bob Ferguson Defending Obama’s Executive Bathroom Mandates in Court

 

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is making news again. This time, he’s leading a group of twelve states in support of the Obama Administration’s use of executive fiat to prohibit schools and businesses from maintaining sex-separated facilities.

The bathroom directive mandates schools to allow students to use whichever showers, locker rooms, housing, changing facilities, and restrooms are consistent with their internal gender identity, regardless of their biological sex.

In May, officials from eleven states led by Texas filed a lawsuit against the federal government and Obama administration officials after federal officials threatened to withhold federal education funding from states and schools that refused to comply with the new directive.  An additional ten states joined together on a separate lawsuit a few months later in an effort to block the Obama Administration’s executive action, led by Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson, on behalf of Washington State and eleven other states and Washington, D.C., filed an amicus brief today imploring the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to deny Texas’ request for an injunction to block the administration’s directive.

Writing in support of the new federal directive that opponents say undermines federalism and infringes upon states’ rights, Ferguson condescendingly speculated that the only possible reason for the states’ opposition to the bathroom directive is their “negative attitudes, misunderstandings, or misplaced fear about transgender people.”

Ferguson also asserted that “their [the states] allegations of safety risks are unsupported hyperbole.” In fact, according to Ferguson, the federal government’s bathroom directive will “overwhelmingly benefit the public.”

Attorney General Ferguson must be unaware of the rash of numerous unsettling incidents sparked by policy changes allowing anyone into whichever facility they choose. The University of Toronto temporarily suspended its policy allowing students to use the showers that correspond with their gender identity last fall after male students were accused of recording females showering in the women’s locker room.

Earlier this month, police in Idaho arrested a man, who identifies as a transgender woman, after he took pictures of a woman changing in a Target dressing room. Other similar incidents have occurred at Target stores in North Dakota, Massachusetts, Texas, and Ohio.

Join FPIW in our fight to restore sanity to locker rooms in Washington State!

LGBT Protestors Trying to Derail Just Want Privacy Campaign in Final Day

 

The Just Want Privacy campaign has until tomorrow to finish gathering 246,000 signatures to put Washington’s Open-Locker Room rule repeal on the ballot in November, and their opponents are making it as tough as possible to get the job done.

The campaign opposing Initiative 1515, Washington Won’t Discriminate, has set up a Facebook group to track signature gatherers from the opposing side.  Many worry that this tracking effort was started to equip LGBT activists to intimidate, bully, and harass those gathering signatures before tomorrow’s deadline.

This morning, Allyship trans-advocates ambushed FPIW’s offices with a protest, standing in front of the entrance to the offices for more than an hour.

More than eight members of the media were present to document this three-person protest for tonight’s news coverage.  This is the same media that somehow couldn’t find the time or interest to show up for the Just Want Privacy event and press conference last month.

Follow us on Twitter @FPIW!

Snohomish School District Adopts Radical Changes to Gender Policy, Parental Rights

 

Parental rights and student privacy suffered another setback Wednesday night when the Snohomish School District voted 6-0 to change its policy on how its schools manage student gender identity issues.

The school board voted 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.

Furthermore, the district will not be notifying students or their parents about other students’ usage of the facilities, in an effort to protect the privacy of those students.  This means that young girls will not be notified that a biological male plans to use the same showers and changing areas as they do, and parents will be left unaware that biological males may be showering or dressing with their daughters.

As it stands now, the policy requires no medical proof for being “transgender,” nor is there a requirement that a student must observe a trans- identity at all times.

Additionally, “The District will provide all students the opportunity to participate in physical education and athletic programs and opportunities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identities,” according to the policy document adopted by the school board.  The decision comes after students in Alaska voiced their frustration after a biological male won third and fifth place in events at the girls’ state track championships.

This policy change also undermines parental rights.  Though the school district’s procedures allow for contacting and involving a gender transitioning student’s parents when the student permits, or when it is legally necessary to do so, parents may be left out of the process altogether.  A student who begins to identify as the other gender will be given “support” by school officials, with or without the involvement of the student’s parents.

Furthermore, school officials will now use the student’s preferred name and gender, regardless of whether parents are notified or what gender is listed on official documents like birth certificates.  The purpose of these changes, according to the district, is “to maximize the student’s social integration and equal opportunity to participate in social, athletic and academic opportunities, ensure the student’s safety, modesty and comfort, and minimize stigmatization.”

What about the safety, modesty, and comfort of females who will now be unwittingly showering and changing with biological males? By changing their policies to ensure the “comfort” of transgender students, the school district is sacrificing the privacy of the vast majority of students who are uncomfortable with the idea of showering and changing with students of the other biological sex.

What happened yesterday at the Snohomish School District meeting should function as a wake up call to parents throughout the state.  It is time to become involved in your child’s school district by attending school board meetings. Find out whether your local school board intends to adopt similar policies, and if so, raise awareness among other parents and share your feelings with your school board.

If this concerns you, or your children, please contact the Snohomish School District immediately and let them know what you think.  Their next meeting is Wednesday, July 27th, at 6:00pm.

Dr. Bill Mester, School Superintendent | 360-563-7280 | bill.mester@sno.wednet.edu

Scott Peacock, Asst. Superintendent of Leadership & Learning | 360-563-7284 | scott.peacock@sno.wednet.edu

School Board Members

Jay Hagen
School Board President
Director District #5: Cathcart, Little Cedars, Totem Falls, Glacier Peak
Phone 360-668-4635
E-mail Mr. Hagen

Leah Hughes-Anderson
School Board Vice President
Director District #2: Cascade View, Emerson, Centennial
Phone 425-308-1252
E-mail Ms. Hughes-Anderson

Shaunna Ballas
Board Member, Foundation Representative
Director District #1: Riverview, Seattle Hill, Snohomish High School
Phone 206-715-0283
E-mail Ms. Ballas

David Johnston
Board Member, WIAA Representative
Director District #4: Central, Valley View, AIM High
Phone 360-568-0228
E-mail Mr. Johnston

Josh Seek
Board Member, Legislative Representative
Director District #3: Dutch Hill, Machias
Phone 425-377-2466
E-mail Mr. Seek

Lesbian Minister in Spokane Says Christians Should Allow Men into Women’s Locker Rooms

 

An Associate Pastor at the Westminster United Church of Christ in Spokane has penned a Letter to the Editorpublished in Spokane’s Spokesman Review newspaper.  Jan Shannon, a licensed minister in the United Church of Christ, and a professed “same-gender loving granny,” offers her “Christian response” to the debate over men in the women’s locker rooms and showers.

“The idea of a person being born one gender but knowing themselves to be another can sound unusual at first,” she said, before concluding that, “Christians are called to love, and treat others as we want to be treated.”

Her letter, which you can read in its entirety below, serves as a great example of how the “love our neighbors” doctrine has been perverted to condone that which is evil in the eyes of our Creator, and what is dangerous as a matter of policy.

Pastor Shannon’s letter claims to represent the Christian position on this issue. Is this the message that you wish to be conveyed on your behalf?


As a Christian, I try to love our neighbors as ourselves, including those who may seem different from us.

Like many people, there was a time when I didn’t know what it meant to be transgender. The idea of a person being born one gender but knowing themselves to be another can sound unusual at first.

I first met a transgender person four years ago and learned of the discrimination they face. Now I see the suffering of these folks, people whom God loves. Initiative 1515 would roll back discrimination protections for transgender people, and discrimination is never OK with God.

New things can be scary, and when we’re scared, it’s important to know the facts. Washington law enforcement leaders and the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs say I-1515 will encourage strangers to confront anyone in public facilities and violate our privacy and safety.

As a pastor, I oppose I-1515. Christians are called to love, and treat others as we want to be treated. We’re all God’s children and we should all be treated equally under the law. Join Christians across the state against I-1515. Support Washington Won’t Discriminate.

Signed,

Jan Shannon

Spokane


Pastor Jan is right on one point: God does love transgender people.  But to imply that he’s created them to be transgender is a terrifying proposition.

What do you think?

Eleven States Sue Obama Administration Over ‘Transgender Facilities’ Mandate

 

The Obama administration’s use of executive fiat to prohibit schools from maintaining sex-separated facilities encountered its first national legal challenge today when nine states (Alabama, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah, and Georgia) and officials from two other states (Maine and Arizona) sued the federal government and Obama administration officials.

At issue is the administration’s recent directive that has been decried by parents and students across the country, mandating that schools open their locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms regardless of biological reality.  In the lawsuit, the states labeled the president’s bathroom directive “radical,” arguing that the administration “conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for social experiments.” They also claim that the president’s bathroom directive, which was issued using executive authority and without a congressional vote, “flouted the democratic process.”

Administration officials concluded in the bathroom directive that Title IX of the Civil Rights Act requires schools to allow students to use whichever showers, locker rooms, housing, changing facilities, and restrooms are consistent with their internal gender identity, regardless of their biological sex. In a letter to school districts, the Departments of Justice and Education threatened to withhold federal education funding from school districts that refused to comply with the Administration’s new rules.

The administration’s interpretation contradicts the original intent and traditional interpretation of Title IX, which allows schools to protect the privacy of students by maintaining separate “facilities for the different sexes.” Even liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a professor at Columbia Law School, wrote in a 1975 Washington Post editorial that because of privacy concerns, equal access and a prohibition on sex discrimination do not exclude separate facilities for changing and using the bathroom.

Officials from the eleven states that filed this lawsuit should be commended for listening to the voice of the people and pushing back against this blatant executive overreach.

It should be no surprise that Washington state, which has its own ongoing fight over bathroom access and privacy concerns, did not join the other eleven states and officials that filed the lawsuit today. The unelected Washington State Human Rights Commission issued a rule last December that prohibits businesses and other places of public accommodation from protecting the privacy of their patrons by ensuring that facility use is determined by biological sex.

Initiative No. 1515, which was filed in response to the Human Rights Commission’s bathroom rule, would repeal the rule and allow businesses, not unelected state bureaucrats, to decide their own bathroom policies.