WE ALL AGREE THAT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA ARE LEGALLY NECESSARY FOR PROTECTION OF A “TRANS” IDENTITY
Shocking, isn’t it? Well, let’s not waste any time proving my alarming assertion with screenshots and links!
This [legal] definition of “gender identity” does not require any objective proof. … a person asserting gender identity as a basis to avoid “discrimination” must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen “gender identity” – without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to “become female” (i.e., sex reassignment surgery.)
These definitions – like the Rhode Island definition and like the definitions cited in the endnotes to this communication – provide no objective standard by which to assess the legitimacy of the “gender identity.” These definitions would allow all males – including registered sex offenders or males subject to a domestic violence order of protection – to assert “gender identity” as a means to invade female-only space. Indeed, these laws provide a legal basis for being in sex-segregated space. It is well-documented that males as a class have a demonstrated history of harming females as a class by exploiting female biology (i.e., rape, sexual violence, unwanted pregnancy). Definitions of “gender identity” that permit the individual to “self-identify” without any duration or medical documentation requirements present the potential for a human rights abuse against all females.[xxix]
My bold. We clearly and plainly advocated the use of objective criteria including duration and medical documentation to prove “gender identity” under the law. We suggested that this would serve as a fraud prevention measure against male sexual predators who will forseeably leverage “gender identity” to fulfill their improper purposes. Regarding our concerns about sex-based male violence, here is a loooooooong and updated list of men masquerading as women with criminal intent.
Footnote 15 of the UN letter provides the definition of “gender identity” that Brennan and Hungerford would support:
[xxx] We fully support anti-discrimination protections for transgender and transsexual people that do not run rough-shod over laws that protect females. We support the following definition of “gender identity” – a person’s identification with the sex opposite her or his physiology or assigned sex at birth, which can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of a transsexual medical condition, or related condition, as deemed medically necessary by the American Medical Association.” Such a definition would protect the classification of sex, while simultaneously providing a cause of action for discriminatory practices on the basis of a persistent and documented “gender identity.” We welcome people who fit into this definition into space segregated by sex in recognition of their perceived need for access and in the fervent hope that we can achieve such protection for identifiably transgender or transsexual people without harming females.
If that isn’t exceedingly reasonable, I don’t know what is! But the backlash was impressive and enduring. For example, I was banned just a few weeks ago from commenting on the mainstream website RawStory.com because, as editor Roxanne Cooper told me, my reputation as a “transphobe” precedes my actual words. I guess she can add Dana Beyer to that list as well.
Let’s see what trans-champion Dana Beyer has to say in 2013 (bold not in original):
Under these new rules any man can claim to be a woman without any evidence of a lived reality and expect to be recognized as such.When this hypothetical was presented by legislators to us advocates, we responded by describing the intricate transition process and acknowledging that the commitment to transition must be engaged before recognition would be offered.
HEY, WAIT A MINUTE. THAT’S WHAT WE SAID!
And wait a minute, that is absolutely NOT the impression Beyer publicly gave to legislators. As the Executive Director of Gender Rights Maryland, Beyer had every opportunity to support a bill that requires the kind of demonstrated commitment to transition she describes above. But Beyer didn’t. She blindly supported the vague, overbroad definition that in Beyer’s own words would allow: “any man to claim to be a woman without any evidence of a lived reality and expect to be recognized as such.” Here is the text of the legislation that Beyer supported:
(E) “GENDER IDENTITY” MEANS A GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY, APPEARANCE, EXPRESSION, OR BEHAVIOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.
This is clearly inconsistent with Beyer’s subsequent commentary at Huffington Post, of which there is much more to read– I only gave you the best excerpt. Such contradictions are commonly known as hypocrisy. (See my suggested revision to the Maryland legislation here.)
Next, here is Monica Roberts on the B. Scott case (yes, a legal context!) speaking favorably about showing a commitment to transition before one should be considered a member of Team Trans:
And yet, when the UN letter was written, Roberts’s response was to publicly announce that Brennan and I are transphobic bigots who deserve to get “pimp slapped.” Roberts further supported Anthony Casebeer’s threats of violence against women as shown in the screenshot below.
According to some sources, Roberts issued an apology, but it was subsequently scrubbed from the internet: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/apology-to-cathy.html Here is further documented proof of Roberts’s complicity with violent threats against Brennan: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-apology-to-cathy.html
So, you see, there’s a lot of talk about what hysterical bigots radical feminist are, but the truth is that in their own words high profile trans-activist transwomen actually agree with us. Whether they will admit it or not. These are their own words. Facts are facts.
Here’s a bonus pic for you!