Trans activists and progressive politicians block funding for Vancouver rape shelter
I was outraged yesterday to discover that Vancouver City Councilors Sarah Kirby-Yung, Pete Fry, and Christine Boyle, at the drone-like beckoning of trans-ideologue and BC NDP Vice President Morgane Oger, presented a resolution to deprive the Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) women’s shelter of funding unless it began allowing male-bodied individuals access to its intimate services.
As a result of Kirby-Yung, Fry, and Boyle’s resolution, along with Oger’s campaigning, 2019 will be the final year VRR qualifies for its city funding until it agrees to change its female-only policy. The VRR is Canada’s oldest rape crisis shelter and had been providing 24-hour services for women who were the victims of male violence. They also provided specialized education on violence against Indigenous women and women of colour, which is something I can specifically appreciate.
The assault on VRR is a but a single, extreme example of a women’s only space being eliminated to satisfy angry, radicalized biological males who demand female acquiescence for identity validation.
And female acquiescence seems to be the only thing that trans-ideologues require to “be” or “feel” female. Vaginas do not make a woman, nor do having uteruses, the ability to bare children, give birth, or experience the systemic, life-long discrimination and oppression that has historically only come with having those things. No, those don’t “make” a woman at all. The only things that “make” a woman, and are fundamental to the mental wellbeing of radical trans-activists, is access to bathrooms, gynecologists, and—now—rape shelters.
Prisons are another place where women have disturbingly been deprived of their ability to be free of the male body. It is no surprise or myth that many women in the correctional system are survivors of domestic abuse and/or sexual violence. In other words, the victims of men. But trans-women have demanded access to these spaces—penises, sex assault convictions and all – in some odd form of “woe is me” that much resembles the narcissistic self-victimization that one could expect from abusers. Oh, and lest we forget patting men on the back on, what else, but International Women’s Day.
The misogyny of these trans-activists should be inherent in their delusion that they can become women, totally. Totally, as such, to the point of there being a movement of trans-women with male bodies demanding recognition as lesbians. In fact, 60% of trans-women identify as “lesbians,” and actual lesbians who, understandably, are not attracted to their male bodies have been decried as the “penis police” and as “transphobes.” In any other circumstance, a male body demanding a female body provide it with sexual recognition would be rightfully considered abuse.
If it is not clear now, then it should be apparent be in their manipulation of language. Othering females so as to differentiate and separate them from their own sex—cis women, how I hate that term – as though we were anything but authentically, simply, women. The lovely Barbara Kay precisely defined this as the “dilution of women.”
If, still, an argument is needed to convince you of the incredible hatred of women these radical trans activists harbor, then you only need to look to their invention of a slur to define and defile women who advocate for women—TERF (Trans-exclusionary radical feminist). As though feminism had some sort of obligation to include men, and do anything more than advocate for women as women, trans activists have taken a page straight from the ghosts of misogyny’s past in creating a bite-sized version of “feminazi.”
Women who seek the uncompromising liberation and safety of women from the influence and ire of men are trash who deserve to be doxed, de-platformed, and put in their place. Where is that ‘place’? That which the penis has decided, of course! The non-penis. The external vagina. The front hole—That disgusting, dehumanizing term that could have only been thought up in a distinctly male brain. Apologize, acquiesce, and give access to those services which were created to help women escape those very female penises in the first place.
I’ll never forget my first reading of that Germaine Greer classic, the Female Eunuch, and how one sentence penetrated me so deeply; “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.” Greer, a women’s rights icon, was one of the many casualties of trans activism, and was thoroughly de-platformed in 2017-18 after 47 fucking years of feminist activism for her comments on trans women. Those comments? That trans women were not women. They could never be or understand what it was like to be.
Understanding femaleness is important. The impact of “trans women are women” is far reaching and isn’t limited to giving male bodies access to women’s spaces. ‘Trans women are women’ inherently denotes that the idea that women suffer a distinct, unique form of oppression at the hands of men – an oppression which shaped and defined them, is gone. How can women experience a distinct, targeted form of sexual, gender-based violence if women, effectively, do not exist? If they are social constructs, transient thoughts in the mind of whoever decides they’d like to be one?
Acknowledging this type of incomparable oppression would mean acknowledging a distinct experience, which would mean acknowledging the need for distinct spaces and distinct rights—which is what women have had up until now. It would mean an inimitable identity, one that could not be appropriated through hormones, wigs, and lacy underthings.
Trans activists would literally rather deny the concept of a unique female oppression than admit the existence of un-appropriable femaleness.
And if that doesn’t convince you of how much these people hate women, I don’t know what will.
Counselling your child against serious health risks of changing gender not 'family violence': BC court ruling
Lawyer John Carpay is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca), which intervened in the BC Court of Appeal in the case of AB v. CD.
In the case of AB v. CD, the BC Court of Appeal has allowed a 15-year-old female-born minor to continue receiving puberty blockers and testosterone, which will likely lead to the irreversible destruction of the minor’s sexual function and fertility.
The Court has deemed AB to be sufficiently mature to consent to the risks of taking testosterone, about which the BC Children’s Hospital has warned: heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, decreased good cholesterol (HDL), increased bad cholesterol (LDL), emotional change (anger and irritability), and vaginal abrasions and tears.
The Hospital warns that the body sometimes converts testosterone to estrogen, which may increase the risks of ovarian, breast, cervical and uterine cancer. The Hospital states that the long-term effects of testosterone and puberty blockers on younger adolescents are unknown, and that the safety of testosterone is not fully understood. Girls who take puberty blockers and testosterone will develop into adults who may look and sound like men, but lack male genitalia. Even after gender re-assignment surgery, as adults they will not be able to father children. Nor will they likely be able to get pregnant and bear children, with natural female sexual maturity having been prevented. CD, who is the father of AB, is devastated.
Neither the lower courts nor the Court of Appeal have grappled with the compelling evidence showing that gender identity confusion usually goes away by itself. The vast majority of boys and girls revert to identifying with their natal sex by the time they are 18, if they are allowed to go through puberty naturally and receive appropriate encouragement and support to embrace biological reality. With psychological counseling instead of hormones and drugs, the success rate ranges from 70 percent to 90 percent, depending on which of the many studies that one relies on. This has been demonstrated by Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Dr. Susan Bradley, who ran the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) in Toronto from 1981 to 2015, successfully treating hundreds of children struggling with gender dysphoria.
The courts have also failed to take heed of a 2011 Swedish study of 324 sex-reassigned persons (191 male-to-females, 133 female-to-males), which shows that the long-term outcome of such treatments resulted in life-long psychological trauma and increased chance of suicide. Even in a progressive and socially liberal country, the suicide rate in these patients was 19 times higher than the general population, as these individuals passed through a post-treatment period of relative happiness but then began to experience significant morbidity and regret. Across the world, a growing number of transgender adults are warning that gender re-assignment surgery has brought them inexorable misery.
Without delving into these concerns, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that deference must be given to healthcare professionals, whose decisions made under the BC Infants Act about whether minors are able to consent to particular treatments, and whether those treatments are in their best interests, are only reviewable by the courts in very limited ways. Yet many of these health practitioners are on an affirmation-only bandwagon, or are afraid to speak out against it. This ensures that many young teens are moved along a path toward transition as soon as they step into a “gender identity clinic.” Parents with serious concerns about social contagion, or other mental health concerns prompting their child’s sudden desire to transition, will find little comfort in this ruling. Hopefully a future case will put evidence of these concerns before the courts.
The small silver lining on this very dark cloud has come by way of this Court now modifying the lower court rulings that drastically restricted CD’s parental rights and his freedom of expression.
Justice Gregory Bowden of the BC Supreme Court issued an Order that CD could not attempt to persuade his female-born child to pursue any treatment other than puberty blockers and testosterone. Justice Bowden further ordered CD not to address his child by the child’s birth name, or to refer to his female-born child as “she” or “her” in any conversation with anyone. Justice Bowden went on to declare that violating these draconian measures would constitute “family violence” under BC’s Family Law Act.
The BC Court of Appeal overturned this order in part, ruling that “there was insufficient evidence in the unique circumstances here to ground a finding of family violence—that is, emotional or psychological abuse—as defined in the Family Law Act.” The Appeal Court added that Justice Bowden “raising the issue of family violence in the context of this case caused the parties to become increasingly polarized in their positions, thus exacerbating the conflict and raising the stakes in the litigation. We see none of this to be in AB’s best interests.”
The father is now once again entitled to communicate his views about the risks and dangers of AB’s current treatment to AB. The Appeal Court noted that AB is a mature minor with capacity to make medical treatment decisions, and this capacity “includes the ability to listen to opposing views.” AB’s capacity to consent does not remove all parental involvement from medical decisions: “Parents can be involved in the process of explanation, instruction and advice leading to the obtaining of the informed consent of the child. They should be involved as part of that process wherever possible.”
Regarding CD’s freedom of expression, the Appeal Court noted that “the values underlying the right to freedom of expression include finding the truth through the open exchange of ideas, which extends to protecting minority beliefs that the majority regard as wrong or false.” However, the Court also ruled that the father’s right to express his opinion publicly and to share AB’s private information to third parties “may properly be subject to constraints aimed at preventing harm to AB. The Court will not restrict “CD’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors, provided none of these individuals is part of or connected with the media or any public forum, and provided CD obtain assurances from those with whom he shares information or views that they will not share that information with others.”
While AB continues to receive testosterone injections, this Appeal Court ruling at least shows greater respect for freedom of expression and for parental rights than did the lower courts. But it’s a small victory in the overall context of this sad case.
A convicted killer who is serving a life sentence in a penitentiary for men is demanding to be transferred to a women’s prison now that she’s self-identifying as a woman.
Jamie Boulachanis recently transitioned from a man to a woman under Canadian law and will have her case heard in which Correctional Service Canada is arguing Boulachanis shouldn’t be trasferred to a women’s facility–in spite of a Federal Court order–due to public safety concerns and her ability to escape prison.
In 2016 a Montreal jury found Boulachanis, born John Boulachanis, guilty of killing 32-year-old Robert Tanguay back in 1997. For years Tanguay’s body remained hidden, buried in sandpit.
According to the Montreal Gazette, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is cited Boulachanis history of trying to escape detention, including one case where she escaped her restraints and ran from a prison bus before being tackled by a guard in less than a minute.
“(Her) risk of escaping is considered high, as is the risk to the public if (she) escapes. She requires a high degree of surveillance and control inside penitentiaries,” CSC wrote in its challenge against the court order to move Boulachanis to a women’s jail.
In the murder trial, the courtroom was told that Boulachanis was worried Tanguay was a police informant ratting on Boulachanis and his accomplices for car thefts and other crimes they were involved in. The jury was also told that Boulachanis was sleeping with Tanguay’s wife after his disappearance.
It’s still unclear if Boulachanis has yet undergone sexual reassignment surgery, although it was scheduled for January.
Last spring a judge ruled that refusing Boulachanis a transfer to a women’s prison is “discrimination based on gender identity or expression.”
The CSC’s arguments against allowing Boulachanis to be transferred will be heard in a Montreal courthouse on Monday.
A jury of eleven has ruled against a father who was attempting to prevent his seven-year-old son from being administered puberty blockers by the boy’s mother and doctor.
Jeffrey Younger will also potentially have to refer to his son James as “Luna” in order to affirm the boy’s gender identity. The father has referred to the treatment of his son as “sexual abuse” by the mother, Anne Georgulas. Court documents show that James prefers to wear boy’s clothes while with him and to be referred to as a boy.
”I want you to imagine having electronic communication with your son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you,” said Younger.
“Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse—I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy.”
James’ mother is seeking to have Jeffrey’s parental rights removed “for not affirming James as transgender” according to The Federalist and she is also seeking to have him pay the bills for therapy and hormone treatment.
While James is not currently being administered the drugs, he could face the potential of chemical castration if undergoing hormone treatment after the age of eleven.
“Every. Single. Day. You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm. because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That’s what it’s like,” said Younger.
The founder of the Miss Marijuana beauty pageant has made it clear. It does not matter if you are pre-op or post-op, you aren’t allowed in his grow-op, leaving some outraged and crying sexism.
Howard R. Baer’s competition will be restricted to natural born women only. Since making the announcement, he has come out and explained why his stance is neither sexist or transphobic.
Many of the articles I had seen online were quick to lampoon Mr. Baer for his comments that the majority of transgender people “have not had the operation” and that “most of the men still look like men.” But my curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to call him myself, as to hear it from the horse’s mouth rather than receive potential misinformation.
I had seen original reports that the pageant was limited to the United States, which left me confused. As we all know, Canada has just recently legalized Marijuana in October of 2018, leaving a clear untapped market for the competition.
I raised this concern to Mr. Baer who decided to clear the air on this. “It’s the United States and Canada, I think we have about 400-500 girls from Canada already signed up.”
I asked if he thought he was getting more interest from Canada with it’s small population compared to the U.S., to which he chuckled and asked “I don’t know? What’s the population of Canada?”
I let him know that Canada is similar in size to California in population, with each near the 38 million mark.
“We’ve got well over 5000 girls signed up already. I’m just gonna guess that we’ve got somewhere between 300-500 from Canada. It’s pretty substantial. The truth is, initially, we didn’t have Canada on there, but then one of our major sponsors is from Canada, so we put it on there and it’s been really good.”
The parameters as to what Miss Marijuana entails was a bit of a mystery to me. Mainly, I wondered, does the future Miss Marijuana need to have an extensive knowledge about weed? And does she even need to smoke weed herself?
“At this point almost everyone knows about marijuana. Our thing is that we don’t want to force young girls to smoke marijuana, that’s for damn sure. Our main thing is that they’re pro-marijuana, not against it. You can’t be campaigning against marijuana.
Marijuana friendly is mainly the thing. Some people vape, some people chew gummies, some people use CBD.They aren’t smoking it, and to us they don’t have to be.”
Another question I had was concerning the prizes. On the website, the winner receives $25,000 and “a vehicle. In the example photo, a Jeep Rubicon is shown, but underneath the photo there’s a clear footnote that states, “vehicle shown for example only.”
I wondered to myself, is this not the vehicle that will be won? Although it is true that a vehicle will be won, Baer informed me that there has not been consensus yet as to what the car will be, but he’s leaning towards the Jeep.
And of course, I had to ask Mr. Baer about his comments on “natural born women” being the only contestants allowed in the Miss Marijuana pageant.
Again, i was a bit confused, and so I asked Mr. Baer the question we were all wondering: What if they’re really passable?
“The problem with it is, you’ve got a lot of them who have not had the operation, and we’ve got a lot of young girls, as young as 18, girls going to the pageant, I spoke with a lot of them and the general perception is that they feel uncomfortable walking in there with someone that has what you or I have. Right?”
Mr. Baer says he’s acting from a place of understanding. “I totally get that. I wouldn’t want her in there if that were the case. I don’t want people uncomfortable. It’s not the mainstream by any means. I’m not against it. I run two websites that are LGBT friendly, it’s not a prejudice or anything like that. Will we change it five years from now? Maybe! I don’t know.”
On top of that, Mr. Baer is quick to point out that his rules are more lenient than the rules surrounding other competitions. He says that Mrs. Universe is really the only competition that allows trans people in their competition.
“The fact is that, when you look at the comparisons, to Miss USA, or any of them, they won’t allow someone that’s married, that has kids, that’s pregnant, that’s had an abortion. They have to be 100% naturally born, that’s the way they are. We don’t have any of those rules here. You have to be single, because it’s miss marijuana. If you have kids, fine.If you were once married? Fine, if you had an abortion, fine. We’re the easiest going ones out there. And we’re getting slaughtered for it.”
For more information on the Miss Marijuana pageant, you can find all the information needed here. What do you think of the pageant? Let us know in the comments below.