At what age do transgender girls become perceived predators? Do we consider a transgender girl in kindergarten – a girl born with male genitalia – to be a predator toward other girls in her elementary school class should they all use the girls bathroom? Would the line be a third grade/8-year-old trans girl? A sixth grade/11-year-old trans girl? A tenth grade/15-year-old, trans young woman?
And, for those male-to-female middle and high school aged trans youth, do we consider them to be perceived predators of their cisgender female classmates in locker rooms?
These aren’t hypothetical questions for female trans youth in California and across the United States – this is a very current education issue across the nation.
Colorado first-grader Coy Mathis was banned this year from using the girls bathroom in the elementary school she previously attended – she’s now being homeschooled. What do the school administrators think Coy could or would be doing in a girl’s bathroom that would be inappropriate behavior toward her cisgender classmates?
Last November in Maine, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) reported that a trial court judge dismissed the case of a transgender girl they’re representing who experienced discrimination and harassment at her Orono school – much of it to do with which bathroom she used. Beginning when both were in the same fifth grade class, the girl was bullied by a cisgender male classmate at the urging of his grandfather. GLAD is appealing the trial court decision.
And last February in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Education Department announced a statewide policy document for how transgender students are to be accommodated in the commonwealth’s public schools. Per the new policy, students “may access the restroom, locker room and changing facility that corresponds to the student’s gender identity.” Trans students also are specifically allowed to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify – in other words, trans girls can play on girls sports teams with cisgender girls and trans boys can play on boys sports teams with cisgender boys.
Most are aware that first and fifth grade trans girls aren’t bathroom predators. These trans youth aren’t using the school’s girls restrooms to prey on their cisgender female classmates, but are using the bathrooms just like their cisgender classmates: to go to use the toilets. As for trans high schoolers …
Well, here in California, one of the two bills that the Transgender Law Center (TLC) is supporting is AB1266, a bill that will ensure that transgender students have a fair opportunity to participate in programs and facilities that match their gender. As the organization’s executive director, Masen Davis, stated about the bill, “Transgender boys are boys, and transgender girls are girls, and this bill ensures they are treated as such.”
Essentially, AB1266 would codify into California law something akin to the regulatory policy that the Massachusetts Education Department recently generated.
San Francisco’s school district accomplishes a yearly survey, and, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the last survey indicated that transgender students represent about 1.5 percent of those enrolled.
The program manager in school health programs for the district told the Chronicle that the district currently has about one-hundred-fifty middle school students and three-hundred high school students who identify as transgender. San Francisco’s district policy matches the policy that AB1266 would mandate for the state.
For a transgender student in the San Francisco school district to use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, students must identify as a certain gender “exclusively and consistently” – in other words, the gender fluidity argument that religious and social conservatives put forward, the one where boys pretend to be girls for a couple of days to peep at naked girls in school locker rooms and then go back to being male – is addressed by the district’s policy. Notably, the district’s health program manager stated there have been no problems with students claiming to be transgender when they are not, nor have there been complaints from parents.
I’m back to the quote from Masen Davis about transgender boys being boys and transgender girls being girls. These trans youth aren’t predators. These trans youth are who they know themselves to be and how they present themselves to the world. When AB1266 becomes law, our state will again be on the progressive side of transgender civil rights, and in my mind that’s a good thing.
Okay, first off, predation is not the issue here. I don’t recall seeing anyone make the obviously absurd claim that a first grader is going to be a predator. Clearly, that is a straw argument to avoid the real issue.
And what is that real issue? That first grade girls are simply going to be very uncomfortable going to the bathroom with a fellow student that they know is a male. Of course, to the transgender extremists, the rights of one TG child trumps the rights of all the female students who this will be forced on.
And on what basis is the assertion made that trans boys are boy, and trans girls are girls?
Is it because they say so? As in a sort of magic, where you say you are a girl, and poof, you are a girl?
Is it because they dress as girls? Or boys?
Is it because the parents say so? What if they have motives other than the interests of the child?
Has a qualified specialist examined the child and made a diagnosis?
What does it take to make the whim of one child superior to the rights of all the girls in a school?
And let’s be clear…in the Colorado case, the child is not seeking to attend school as a “girl” but as a transgender. If this child is really a girl, why is an effort not being made to place the child in a school where the child’s history is not known, and the child would be able to actually attend school as a girl. And why is the child still using a male name? Coy is not gender neutral, it is a boy’s name.
In Colorado the school offered a compromise that addresses the needs of the child, and protects the rights of the girls in the school. But clearly, to the extremists, that is not enough.
The right of a child not to be singled because of a medical condition out trumps the right of a child not to be exposed to the existence of a medical condition. A medical condition should not have to be kept secret in order for a child to not be treated poorly because of it.
Coy is an uncommon enough name that it isn’t meaningfully gendered.
The problem with your position is a)it is too early in the child’s life to determine, with anything remotely approaching certainty, that this is a medical condition, and not because of other reasons, and b) given the nature of the condition, if it does exist, keeping it secret would be essential to the successful treatment. It is only the transgender extremists who actually believe (and vehemently insist) that being “out, loud, and proud” is remotely consistent with dealing with actual transsexualism, when, in fact, quite the opposite is true. If this child really is a girl, then the child should be allowed to actually live as a girl, not as a TG, junior grade. That would be quite inhumane. But, I imagine the parents are enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame, irregardless of the harm it causes the child.
And sorry, but Coy is definitely, and quite meaningfully gendered. It is not actually that uncommon, and if you check the Social Security name index, you will find that yes, it is meaningfully gendered (as in no significant, if any, girls named that). In another words, it does not show up as a girl’s name at all. I did not just go with my assumption, which was correct, I verified it.
Coy is an uncommon enough name that most people will either meet 1 or zero people named Coy in their lifetime. (1 in 25000 people right now, and getting less and less common) That makes it not meaningfully gendered, especially to members of this little girl’s generation. And names are entirely cultural and their gendered meanings always in flux, so boy’s names and girl’s names are absurdities anyway.
If people like you did not insist on degendering and dehumanizing anyone who doesn’t hide their trans history, then acknowledging the girl’s history wouldn’t be inhumane at all. It would not be okay for her to be made a martyr, to force her to be out and possibly ostracized if that is not what she wishes, but to treat a six year old’s medical condition as a dirty secret is just as horrible.
It is sad that you find it unimaginable that a woman’s trans history/body could be understood by her peers without her being seen as less of a woman for it, especially since that implies that you feel that way about your own history.
(And 6-year-olds don’t insist consistently that they are not their assigned gender unless they are profoundly dysphoric about it. It isn’t “too soon” to know if this is a real medical condition.)
Coy is not a particularly common name, nor is it an uncommon name. It peaked in 2003, but only as a boy’s name. I mean, really, it is obvious you are just making stuff up…which is kind of dumb in this day and age. Here is a link that shows how wrong you are…
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Coy
As it say, it is a boy’s name. A bit out of date, but definitely a boy’s name. Not that uncommon even. And no, most names are not in flux. Again, please don’t try to BS me. It doesn’t work, and it only makes you look even sillier.
Coy is a boy’s name. Maybe, and I am being kind here, haven’t the experience to know that. But Coy is not a name that anyone would think is a girl’s name. Perhaps the child is too young to know, but his parents…well, I suspect they do know better. The fact that they are not working to change the name is a red flag.
Six year old children can get all sorts of ideas in their heads and then outgrow them. You want to impose transgender on this child because it suits your agenda. Rather sad really, I think the child should be given some space, but the child also has to learn that others matter as well. And the simple fact is, in reality, a penis equals male to the vast majority of people. It is called, well, reality. Something you can’t seem to accept.
Oh, and one more point…
The school is only required to accommodate a medical condition within reason. The school offered to do just that. They provided an adequate bathroom option that allows the child access to a bathroom without contravening the privacy rights of other children. Your assertion that the right of the child not to be singled out is absurd, since it is by the child’s own choice that the child is singled out. And the child is not being treated poorly at all. The child is simply not being given “special rights,” which is exactly what is demanded in this case. That is, and you are asserting, that the child’s supposed rights “trumps” the rights of the majority. The child is, whether you want to face it, or not, still physically male. The child’s presence would cause quite reasonable discomfort for female students who are aware of this fact, and there is literally no chance of anyone not being aware of that fact. Seriously…if you don’t want it to be pointed out that you are asking for special rights…well, don’t ask for special rights.
I just don’t see how a child’s right to privacy extends to a right not to sit in a stall next to someone who is built slightly (these are prepubescent kids and this girl might never go through the wrong puberty since she has supportive parents) differently due to a medical condition. If a child is so off-put by another child’s medical condition, a better solution would be for the off-put child to use the nurse’s office. “Physically male” isn’t a very meaningful descriptor of a prepubescent body.
Of course you don’t. There is a lot you don’t see, because you are too busy trying to get around basic social rules. At this point, we don’t know what this child will, or will not go through. Sorry, but the situation of one child, who may, or may not, be transsexual do not trump the rights of an entire school. The school administration has offered a very reasonable compromise. It is the attention seeking parents who are the problem.
A Woman, Period: You are seriously ill informed. Gender is not what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears. For those of us that have parented a trans child, believe me, we’ve done all we can to convince them otherwise. At some point, you need to opt to love the child for who they are. This is not a choice, it is an inborn trait. As parents, we know this. For many, it is obvious by 18 months old. Transgender may not seem ‘normal’ to you but for the person it is happening to, it is normal for them. Just as you know in your heart you are who you are, they know who they are. And it is not the gender they were assigned at birth. Do some reading. Enlighten yourself. Your transphobia is showing.
No, I am not remotely ill informed. I very likely know quite a bit more about this topic than most. No, true transsexualism is not a choice. But, being transgender is. Transgender is a made up term that refers to an artificial social/political construct that tries to tie a wide range of chosen behaviors to the medical condition of transsexualism. It has no objective definition, and is, at best, an identity, not a reality.
Now, I honestly don’t know if the child in Colorado is transsexual, or not. There are some serious questions that come to mind. If the child is transsexual, then the proper treatment would be to place the child in an environment that would allow the child to escape the past and flourish as a female. On the other hand, if this is just a political stunt, that would not work out very well, now would it. Or, perhaps more likely, the child is transsexual, but the parents see an opportunity for fiduciary gain and are telling themselves, as people often do when fiduciary gain is involved, they are doing stuff for the good of the child, when they are really just trying to get attention that might garner them things like a book deal or a reality show.
Please, spare me the “transphobia” slam. It is, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, the last refuge of a weak argument. No, gender, like sex, actually means something. It is not some nebulous concept that is malleable, and can be claimed at will. I have met far too many transgender people who were, to use another made up work, actually quite cisgender. They just liked the idea of being “transgender.”
And, in all of this, you have not addressed my actual point, which is why does a claimed right of one child trump that of a large number of children, especially when a reasonable compromise has been offered? The school is not saying the child should be forced to present as a boy, use the boys room, or such. it is simply saying that the rights of ALL students have to be considered, not just one child’s.
You do realize that “made up term” is a tautology, right? All terms are made up, that is how language happens, and all taxonomies, even medical/biological ones, are socially constructed to an extent. Just as we have to deal with alligators being being more closely related to toucans than monitor lizards, we have to deal with gender (some neurological factors correlated with sex) and sex (genetics, wolffian-mullerian system development, secondary characteristics created by hormone absorption) being both very physical realities and seemingly amorphous due to their complexity.
Let me put it this way….there is a difference between a term that comes out of a source like academia, where it is developed based on accepted criteria, and a word that is generated by a bunch of people with a political agenda. Transgender is, for all practical purposes, a meaningless word. Even it biggest fans cannot agree on exactly what it means, or who it applies too (which is why they spend so much time trying to force it on people). It is a highly subjective artificial, political/social construct with no objective meaning. It is, at best, an identity that has no real boundaries. If you call yourself transgender, then you are. But it doesn’t really mean anything.
There is no such thing as gender, it’s sex ask any biologist.
You transgenders and your imaginary constructs make me laugh.
Anne
When I went to legally change my sex in California, I found out that gender is the legal term used in the court process. The California NC-330 form is entitled “Order For Change Of Gender And Issuance Of New Birth Certificate,” and Block 3 of the form indicates whether one has changed one’s gender from male-to-female or from female-to-male.
When this form is completed, and then signed by the appropriate Judicial Officer, this court document then becomes a court order. This court document is then can be mailed in a package to the California Department of Vital Records which then issues a new birth certificate on which the name is changed (if one changed one’s name as part of one’s transition), and Block 2 — the box titled “sex” — is changed to recognize the gender identified in the court order.
Beyond my own personal experience, the term gender is used throughout the California Codes.
Such as, California Civil Code 51 (The Unruh Act), Section 1, paragraph (b) states:
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
And, paragraph (e)(4) of the same code section defines “sex” this way::
“Sex” includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
Also, section 200 of the California Education Code includes the following text:
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
And section 32228 of the same Education Code includes the following text:
It is also the intent of the Legislature that public schools have access to supplemental resources to combat bias on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation, as defined in subdivision (q) of Section 12926 of the Government Code, and to prevent and respond to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents. Sexual orientation shall not include pedophilia.
And Section 12921 of the Government Code includes the following text:
The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, there are many, many uses of the terms “gender identity and expression” and “gender” in the California Codes. The term gender in these usages isn’t as a social construct, but as a legal term.
And as there are no transgender members of California Senate or Assembly, obviously other people beyond transgender identified community members have imbued the word gender with legal significance.
So, there is such a thing as gender in California, Anne: just ask any California attorney. Gender in that context isn’t an “imaginary construct” — if nothing else, it’s a term with found throughout the California codes imbued with legal significance.
ROTFL! Legal terms are, quite basically, social constructs. And, in many cases, can be quite imaginary. The whole concept of “incorporation” is to create a “person” on paper. The Latin word “corpus” means “body,” and when a corporation is formed, it is an entity treated by law, as though it were a person. Quite fanciful, and hardly rooted in reality.
The fact that such language was slipped into the code does not make it reality, and more than a corporation is “really” a person. Yes, as many use it, “gender” really is an imaginary construct.
So apparently, the only words acceptable to you, are those created through holy decree or something.
Guess what? English is based on *common usage* – and as such, the etymology of a word, or it’s origins means next to nothing compared to it’s currently applied use. The fact that psychology incorporates this word into it’s vernacular should be reason enough, in this context, to accept what it means at face value. However, if insist on ignoring that property of the English language, and if, furthermore, you insist on dismissing an entire field of practice simply because it doesn’t comport to your worldview, then there is another word that is pertinent here – one which you would do well to look up. The word is “bigot”
ROTFL… Of course, in this case, the definition of the word “bigot” is someone that doesn’t agree with a transgender extremist. I happen to believe that there is something known as, shall we say, the “social contract.” You don’t like it, because it interferes with your desires. You could care less how others are affected, and you want your way, or else….well, or else you will use “club words” to beat people with. Call me what you wish….it changes nothing. I deal in reality, you deal in fantasy and desire….
The use of the word Gender is only a recent development since political pressure was placed on the system by the transgender law center, hence the political correctness Nazis have won a minor victory in the legal system. Like the hijacking of the term Gay which use to mean happy this is another example of the authoritarian left forcing the rest of us to conform to their standards
Anne
It is interesting how these discussions always get side tracked by straw arguments. The original point I raised, why should the rights of other students be subservient to the rights of one child, goes unanswered.
Anne, I basically agree. What some call gender is the sexual differentiation of the brain. It is all physical, not social construct, but the TG’s, and ironically, the radfems, want to believe otherwise.
I have found it rather interesting the Tee-Gees and the RadFems are drinking the same Kool-Aid.
Anne
It is a bit weird…but such is the nature of extremism. For example, the far Left and the far Right both tend to agree that the Illuminati is behind all the evil in the world.
Well in this case the Tee-Gees and most of the loud and proud LGB are leftist authoritarians and don’t believe in freedom for all. As soon as freedom of association, and freedom to do business with whom you wish away freedom of speech soon follows, if you don’t stick to their approved list of words and don’t agree with the serialization of children you are subject to discrimination. They have achieved their goal of being more of an oppressor than their oppresses are.
Anne
Coming from the center where rationality rules.
Yes, if you study the historic definitions of the terms liberal and conservative, you will find that today’s liberals are very conservative, and todays conservatives are very liberal…in the historic sense. It all gets very strange when you start adding in things like socialism, which is rooted in ideas that are historically conservative, but highly perverted and is very authoritarian.
Historically, liberals emphasized the individual and freedom, whereas conservatives emphasized society and authority. Now, much of that is flipped, with the left emphasizing society and authority and the right emphasizing the individual and freedom, though there is also a lot of overlap with both looking to authoritarian approaches when they don’t get their way.
Welcome to 1984 and the destruction of free America.
A Woman, Period and sd woman: You are BOTH horribly ignorant and misinformed. Gender is not the same thing as sex. Neither is it completely inborn, because many of the gender roles we assign to people in our societies and the meanings we find behind their expressions of gender are in fact social constructs. Stop lumping various categories of people like radfems and trans* people together. And you say that transsexuality is real but being transgender isn’t, but transsexuals ARE transgender. They just also feel that their sex should be different that the one the were born with/assigned in addition to their gender.
It’s simple:
“transgender” means gender identity =/ gender assigned at birth
“transsexual” means subconscious sex =/ sex assigned at birth
And on the topic of the issue at hand… It’s ridiculous that the state made this amazing law and then people turn around and start fighting it. The real issue here is ignorant people you who think of transgender people as their assigned gender. A trans girl is a GIRL, and a trans boy is a BOY. The physical body parts they have don’t trump their internal identities. If a person assigned and raised as a woman, and feels herself to be a woman, suddenly discovers that she is intersex and has internal “male” genitalia, or a Y chromosome, or whatever, does she stop being female? NO! She is still a woman through and through if she feels herself to be one.
A transgender girl, whether transsexual or not, has as much right to use the girls’ bathroom as any other girl. You think conservatives are fighting for individual rights and freedom and liberals aren’t? Wake up. You’re talking about denying the rights of a few students to bend to the fears of the majority (and it’s mainly the parents who are taking issue, in my view). That’s not freedom. That’s bigotry.
Well, think you for proving my point. Gender is a part of what might well be termed sex. The effort to completely separate them originated with extremists like Arnold Lowman, who you might know better as “Virginia Prince.” But it is not remotely a fact. Yes, a person can certainly choose to transgress gender roles. Now, you fall back on the old “social constructs” claim, which has been used for years in this effort. In a sense, things like fashion might well be called social constructs, but that is a vast oversimplification. Now, I realize you will no doubt want to haul out some silliness like “Scottish men wear skirts (say that to a Scotsman, and you are risking a bloody nose (at the very least) or some other such remark, but all that will from me is a round of laughter.
Yes, in the sense that they both rely on bad science, and a complete ignorance of modern research, radfems and transgender extremists should be lumped together in that sense.
Yes, transsexuality is an objective medical condition. Rare, and with defined criteria. Transgender is an artificial, social/political construct that is totally subjective, with no clear boundaries. You are transgender, if you say you are transgender, and not, if you say your are not. Transsexuals are NOT transgender unless they choose to identify that way. I am not transgender, and I will thank you to refrain from trying to force that term on me.
And please, don’t make up silliness like “subconscious sex.” The correct term would be “sexual differentiation of the brain.” A true transsexual is someone born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their physical sex. It is, quite literally, a form of intersex. A transgender person is someone who chooses to call their self transgender. Period. End of discussion.
Does a person become a woman simply by saying, “I feel like a woman?” Only in transgender fantasies. Sorry, but “woman” means something. It is not something you just claim.
Now, you still have not answered my question. WHY would the rights of this child supersede the rights of the other children? Why does this child, who may or may not, actually be transsexual (seriously, six years old is a bit young to make such a determination) be allowed to cause disruption? The child is neither being told to not use the bathroom at school (totally unacceptable) or told to use the boy’s room (possibly unacceptable). A reasonable and fair compromise has been reached, for the time being. Now, I can see two possible solutions. The one offered by the school, which addresses everyone’s concerns as simply as possible. Or, they parents could have the child sent to another school where the child could be “stealth.” If the child is truly transsexual, this would be the obvious best choice. The child could then, simply be a girl (as long as discretion is practiced) and everyone could be happy,
Or, the parents can insist on the child being, shall we say, “out, loud, and proud” which pushes this out of the medical realm and into the political realm. And that exposes the real issue. That, as I have pointed, out, transgender really is an artificial, social/POLITICAL construct, and really is about transgression of gender, not actually being a woman, or a man for that matter.
That is not about “rights.” that is about forcing your views on people who disagree. In that sense, it is about violating rights.
Oh, and you expose your lack of knowledge of the real facts by bringing up what is known as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or a so-called XY Woman. Those very rare cases are what proves my point. Yes, such a person is physically a female externally (vagina, etc.) They require hormones, of course, to develop secondary sexual characteristics. They don’t, however, actually have “internal male genitalia.” They have a small amount of what might be considered testicular tissue, but little else. But, and this is the part you so blissfully gloss over, is their mental state. Such women are extremely feminine in their mindset. Why? Because, the testosterone that should have made their brains male, had no effect. Their brains are wired as female as possible. Yes, they are an exception that proves the rule, so to speak. They show, beyond any question, that in reality, what you, and the radfems, want to call a social construct, really is based in biology.
Can a person choose, for whatever reason, to defy that biological fact, and pretend? Yes…that is what transgender is all about. Can a person be born with a body that sexually differentiated one way, and a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with that body? Yes, that is what we call a transsexual. Are they remotely related? Not at all. One is a CHOSEN behavior, the other is a medical condition.
CAIS women don’t need hormones. They have somewhat stunted testes which produce enough testosterone to cause fairly normal female development when that testosterone converts into estrogen, as it is wont to do when a body won’t absorb it. CAIS women only need to take hormones because doctors falsely claim that their testes are significantly more likely to be cancerous and cut them out.
The “sexual differentiation of the brain” would only make transsexualism more real than transgender if there were studies showing that transgender people have typical male/female brains, not to mention the fact that plenty of people who are considered transsexual by the studies showing brain differences probably wouldn’t make the HBSer cut. The fact that the subjects in the Luders study (which clearly showed that pre-hormones trans women’s brains were not male brains) were recruited from the trans community is evidence that you are likely wrong in your assumptions about the validness of people’s genders based on their politics.
Well, they don’t “need” hormones if they want to remain as sort of pre-adolescent females. Obviously you have NO idea what you are talking about. CAIS women don’t enter puberty. They don’t develop breasts, and they don’t start having periods. That is how they find out they are CAIS women. They also do not have “testes.” They have a small bit of testicular tissue that is non-functional…the medical terms is “streak gonads.”
Politics has nothing to do with it. Though, admittedly, the vast majority of transgender activists act like bad caricatures of women. As to the brain studies, they all have relatively small sample, so they say little about things like you suggest. For those topics we have to look at other factors, like behavior. The simple fact is, the vast majority of transgender people are motivated by fetish, not having a female brain. Most are quite attached to their penises (in another words, you are right, they are NOT HBS) and are more than content to hang on to their male histories. Put in other words, they are men, with male brains, and a male gender, who get their jollies playing dress up. In some cases, as they age, they decide to engage in their fetish more and more. But they remain basically men.
Re: trans girls as predators @ Womanperiod: Cathy Brennan, self-appointed commissar of all things “jendah” claims repeated well-documented instances of predation by trans women upon natal females 24/7/365. While these instances tend to be anecdotes lacking source material, it is a central tenet of contemporary gender fascism. Just ask KNOWN child predator Nelson Garcia of the NGblog for equality; for he is a known Brennan accomplice. ;>
Again,, the issue is not predation per se, but privacy. In the Colorado case, the issue is a child who is known to be male, who makes no secret of being male, but who claims to be a girl. This could make the girls that have to share that rest room very uncomfortable. If the child’s parents really cared about the child’s being a girl, they would try to put the child in a situation where the child could be, as they say, “stealth.” Instead, the parents, in true transgender style, are demanding that the child, shall we say, be openly transgender.
And you are misusing the term “gender fascism,” which refers to the efforts of the transgender crowd to force their label on those who do not wish it. I should know, as I coined the term.
Gender fascism has been used to mean authoritarian policing of gender expression and identity since the 90s at least. You started using it in an anti-transgender way in 2008. Making up a new use for a term is not coining a term.
It is also commonly used to refer to gender based chauvinism, usually by MRAs criticizing strawmen of feminism.
If it is an authoritarian enforcement of some kind of ideology, and it is related to gender, then calling it gender fascism is not “misuse.”
Hmmm, well I have never seen it used that way, so I am just going to roll around laughing just like I did when Williams started claiming that the term transgender was in common use before the mid-Nineties (someone POSSIBLY using a term in isolated cases does not count). And MRAs? Oh, Men’s Rights Advocates….like Sandeen, and Williams, and all the other gender fascists…yeah, I will buy that. Because let’s face it, that is REALLY what they are.
As to your misuse, well it appears we disagree.
It seems to me that A Woman Period and sd woman have a fixation on the author of this piece. Keep providing the LGBT Weekly your clicks and stay classy, guys…
Fixation? No… Disagreement, yes. If you haven’t figured it out, I am adamantly opposed to the agenda pushed by Sandeen and other transgender extremists, and I speak out against it. And nope, not a guy….but thanks for playing. Now, next contestant on, “Who Want’s To Be a Sock Puppet?”
Ok…transsexual woman here. I knew I was a girl from the time I was four. My parents tried talking me out of it, beating it out of me, punishing it out of my, e,optionally scaring it out of me. My classmates did much of the same. At age 10, despite this torment, I still was sure. I told my father who made me choose between the cold Vermont nights or being a boy. I relented and his. My father forced me into sports to toughen me up. Nope, i excelled but still a girl. Boy Scouts? I was an Eagle Scout, and still a girl. Dating women felt wrong but to my parents, the only thing worse than being a girl was being gay. I even married one, hoping it could make me feel like a guy. Nope, still a girl.
So here I am, early 30’s, blessed with naturally feminine features, a legal female, dating men like all straight women do, waiting my last few weeks before my surgery. Did I grow out of it? Nope, still a girl. 4 years old is old enough to know. I did. Why can’t others?
Also, about giving some rights despite making the majority uncomfortable. Lesbians make me uncomfortable. The thought of two women hooking up and having sex doesn’t interest me at all and the site of two women kissing makes me turn away. Same with two guys. And I know that I’m not alone. I am sure that there is a majority of people in this country who would be uncomfortable seeing a lesbian or gay couple making out on the side of the road. So, I propose that we outlaw gay PDA because it makes some people uncomfortable, but allow straight couples to make out in public. My argument doesn’t make sense, does it? Yet people are arguing the same thing for a trans person to simply use the restroom, in a closed stall, where no one can see what you’re doing. And that’s wrong…