Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) has been a vocal and active advocate for trans affirmative medical care. Their latest foray into making sure male-bodied trans persons feel comfortable is to allow them access to medical care on women’s hospital wards. If a female patient has a problem with it, she will be removed.
“Women patients who complain about having a biological male in the next bed risk being kicked off the ward under new NHS transgender guidelines. Medical staff will be expected to deal with those who object to trans patients on single-sex wards as if the complainant is a racist or homophobe, the guidance states. Rather than relocate the trans patient, such as to a single room, it will be the person who makes the complaint who will be moved, according to the policy.”
Women’s groups complained about this change but were rebuffed. In fact, if a woman complains at being roomed with a male-bodied person, hospital staff is instructed to protect the trans person from the woman. The “…duty of care extends to protect patients from harassment and should the woman continue to make demands about the removal of the transgender patient and be vocal in the ward it would be appropriate to remind her of this… Ultimately it may be the complainant who is required to be removed.”
The NHS argument uses racism as a means to bolster the argument, claiming that “If a white woman complained to a nurse about sharing a ward with a black patient or a heterosexual male complained about being in a ward with a gay man, we would expect our staff to act in a manner that deals with the expressed behaviour immediately.” Of course, these are completely different things. Race has no bearing on gender, as both sexes exist within every race on earth. The same goes for sexual orientation, the fact of who a person is attracted to has nothing to do with their anatomy.
Under the guise of medical care, the NHS has encouraged hormone treatment, breast binding, and “packing” in minors. Before removing via surgery or chemical children’s reproductive capability, they may pay for the freezing of eggs and sperm, so that after the children undergo sterilization they will have access post-transition. At least one mother was threatened with the removal of her child by child services after she balked when NHS referred her 14-year-old daughter for gender reassignment hormones.
Grade school children are asked if they are comfortable in their own gender, while the NHS refers to children as young as 4 to gender reassignment doctors for assessment. There was even an NHS doctor who was fired for stating that gender is not assigned at birth, but is an innate condition. Women have pushed back against both the placing of male-bodied trans persons into women’s prisons and refuges. One woman was appalled to receive care from a trans nurse when a female nurse was requested.
Over and over, women’s spaces are being opened to male-bodied trans persons, children are being encouraged to assess their own bodies for correctness, young people are given life-altering drugs and surgeries before their brains are finished forming, and women are told to put up or shut up. It’s bad enough to house men in women’s prisons, or in battered women’s shelters, both of which see women at their most vulnerable. But allowing men into women’s hospital wards seems barbaric and cruel.
Anyone with a brain can agree that, despite gendery feelings, the difference between those with male bodies and those with female bodies are their bodies. Every time I write this it seems more and more absurd to say that men and women have different bodies or to try and justify just how bodies are relevant to medical care. But men and women have different bodies, the differences in those bodies are even more apparent when both take off their dresses and stand naked before medical professionals. The kind of medical care that men and women receive is different precisely because their bodies are different.
Rape victims should not arrive for hospital care only to be roomed with a male-bodied person. Male bodied persons need different care for their reproductive systems because they have different reproductive systems. It’s frankly insane that we have to keep saying this. Male bodied persons do not need gynecologists, no matter how much silicone they’ve been fitted with.
Gynecological patients should not have to undergo vaginal exams with a male-bodied person in the bed next to them, or be fitted with a catheter, or worry about their hospital gowns slipping, or showing too much skin when they carry themselves to the bathroom or fear intimate conversations about their anatomy being overheard.
This continued push against women having private spaces has so much to with men’s needs being put first. In medical circles, it has come to light that the understood symptoms for heart attack were male-centric, and that there have been biases against women’s pain. Women are less likely to be given CPR, to be properly treated for dementia, and often have their concerns overlooked. Now, even in women’s hospital wards, women will have a harder time getting noticed, having their concerns heard, or even finding privacy.
Trans advocacy that puts men in women’s spaces reflects the demand that women submit to men’s wishes, desires, and delusions. The NHS should recognize this as the gaslighting it is, and give women back their medical autonomy. Medical services should be more aware of women’s needs, not less. When women speak up for themselves, they should be heard, not silenced, shuttled off to some locale where they will get even worse medical care than that which they already access.
Most women who are housed with males on a women’s hospital ward will not speak up, they will instead suck it up, for fear that their lives will be put at even more risk. It’s up to the NHS, legislators, and women’s groups to stand for women’s rights, and not throw them under the proverbial gurney.
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
Chick-fil-A donated to 'extreme anti-Christian' organizations
When well known Christian fast-food organization Chick-fil-A has decided to halt funding to the Salvation Army due to what critics called “anti-LGBT stances,” many backers of the delicious chicken joint felt betrayed. But this sense of betrayal has all but intensified, as revelations came that Chick-fil-A has been donating to what some are calling “extreme anti-Christian groups in America.”
For years now, Chick-fil-A, the Georgia-based chicken chain, has faced backlash from LGBT groups for their hefty donations to The Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Chick-fil-A told ABC News that they would instead be focusing on donations to groups that prevent homelessness, hunger, and education, starting next year.
“Beginning in 2020, the Chick-fil-A Foundation will introduce a more focused giving approach, donating to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of hunger, homelessness and education,” Chick-fil-A said in a statement. “We have also proactively disclosed our 2018 tax filing and a preview of 2019 gifts to date on chick-fil-afoundation.org,” the statement continued. “The intent of charitable giving from the Chick-fil-A Foundation is to nourish the potential in every child.”
As reported on first by Townhall, an IRS 990 form showing that the chicken shop donated $2,500 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which critics from the Family Research Council (FRC) deem to be “un-Christian.”
This would be directly opposed to owner Dan Cathy’s public stance of the company, telling The Baptist Press: “[We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”
In reponse to this, FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:
“Not only has Chick-fil-A abandoned donations to Christian groups including the Salvation Army, it has donated to one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America. Anyone who opposes the SPLC, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives, is slandered and slapped with the ‘extremist’ label or even worse, their ‘hate group’ designation. At one point, the SPLC even added Dr. Ben Carson to its ‘extremist’ list because of his biblical views (and only took him off the list after public outcry).
“Seven years ago, a shooter entered our building with the intent to murder as many people as possible and smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their faces. The gunman was enraged by the nationwide Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day held two weeks before and used the SPLC’s ‘hate map’ to identify FRC as his target. Despite being seriously wounded, the FRC building manager, Leo Johnson, heroically stopped the gunman. Dan Cathy, nor anyone with Chick-fil-A inquired about the well-being of Mr. Johnson or any of the FRC team members, but they made a donation to the SPLC which was linked in federal court to this act of domestic terrorism. Chick-fil-A has seriously lost their way.”
“It’s time for Christians to find a fast food alternative to Chick-fil-A,” concluded Perkins.
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
The Guardian set up a ‘cotton ceiling’ blind date
Anna and Jen went on a date. The Guardian set it up, as part of their blind dating service. It was a sweet little date, both Anna and Jen enjoyed themselves. They shared some wine, they shared a kiss, and the whole experience was written up in their Blind Date column. The Guardian didn’t reveal the daters’ genders to one another—presumably because The Guardian’s editors think everyone should be okay with being pansexual.
Anna gave the date an 8 out of 10. A second date was talked about, but not carried out. All in all though, a success for the news outlet’s blind dating program.
Jen was asked: “And… did you kiss?”
“Yesssss! Outside the station. I am so bad at kissing, though, so I hope I didn’t embarrass myself. Her glasses fogged up, which was super cute. I’d like to see her glasses fog up again,” she said.
There was just one little hitch, however, which was that Jen is trans; Anna is a biological woman and a lesbian.
By all accounts, Anna was charming, and she and Jen had a good time. But the internet picked up on this detail of disclosure. It was posited by gender critical women that this was an unreasonable oversight, that the biological sex of a blind date should be at least one thing the participants would know about each other.
Others had the idea that the second date was cancelled by Anna because of Jen’s transness.
And of course, any of those things could be true. Maybe Anna and Jen were surprised by each others’ genders. Maybe Anna was expecting a female lesbian. Maybe Jen was expecting a trans woman. Maybe both of them were expecting female lesbians. Only The Guardian could know that for sure.
The Guardian claimed that it did not disclose participants’ because it did not ask for the info. Presumably, before setting up blind dates, people are asked what they are looking for in a mate. Dating apps give users the opportunity to state what kind of sexual partner they are looking for, but maybe The Guardian doesn’t do this. Maybe instead there’s the presumption that all people can see past gender, to the sweet and gooey insides, and find true like no matter what the external package
If so, then kudos to The Guardian for their ingenious plan to overturn millennia of sexual and biological evolution with just a few pixels, a blind date, and a snog outside the train station. But in today’s climate of gender confusion, I don’t know if we should be so generous to these editors.
Perhaps they believed that the right thing to do was to categorize a trans woman who is into women as a lesbian, for the purposes of breaking through that cotton ceiling. Maybe they figured that if Anna wasn’t into biological men who claim to be lesbians, that would be her problem.
For their part, Jen and Anna behaved like the civil, thoughtful, considerate young people that they probably are.
There was no love connection this time, but the next time The Guardian sets up two people of undisclosed genders, perhaps they’ll get lucky. It is not appropriate for a dating service to be so enthralled with the blind date idea that they are not even honest about the gender of the people being set up. If The Guardian is to be a trusted dating service, and maybe that’s not such a great idea, then they have a responsibility to respect people’s gender and sex preferences, or at least to disclose. Not everyone is into surprises.
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
A bestselling trans author’s tweet thread about abuse goes viral, then came the allegations of her own abuse
On Nov. 10, a celebrated trans author wrote a viral tweet thread that received over 100,000 likes. The thread complained about the discrepancy between successful, beautiful women, and their often abusive and unkempt male partners.
As it turns out, she may have been projecting.
The author, who writes under the pen name “Meredith Russo,” is formerly known as Meredith Stroud and Travis Lee Stroud. Her 2016 novel If I Was Your Girl received multiple awards and near-endless commendations from literary elites. On the back of the book’s success, Stroud, 32, was invited to publish an article in The New York Times on the struggles of being a transwoman. Stroud’s subsequent book, Birthday, received awards from Refinery29, Bustle and Nylon.
However, some Twitter users brought attention to a blog post from 2016 where the author’s arrest record and past relationship history were detailed, prompting the author to use block lists to squelch criticism.
“Domestic violence is insidious and slow, like the proverbial boiling frog,” Stroud’s ex-wife, Juniper Russo, said. “It’s hard to say when it all started.”
Juniper Russo alleges she was subjected to a campaign of sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of her former partner, abuse she says was so severe that the marriage culminated in a divorce in early 2015.
“We met on OKCupid in 2011 and got married in 2013,” Russo said, claiming the physical abuse started shortly after the wedding. “We had a lot of shared interests at the time, and I was naive enough to think that shared interests are the foundation of a healthy relationship.”
Russo shared disturbing details of some of the alleged abuses she suffered during her marriage to Meredith Stroud.
“When my son was born in 2014, I had severe pre-eclampsia and injuries from giving birth. I had to have major reconstructive surgery. I was extremely weak and in severe pain,” Russo said.
“Meredith was extremely abusive to me during this time, calling me a ‘feeding station, not a parent’ because breastfeeding my son was one of the only things I could do, and because I was asking [Meredith] to help with things like diapers,” Russo also alleges.
During this same time, Juniper says Stroud would tell her to commit suicide. “[Meredith] kept mocking me when I was in pain, and told me I was so useless as a parent I should just kill myself.”
Russo says she was first forced to call the police in late 2014, “[Meredith] was having an outburst. I got scared and called 911. [Meredith] took the phone from me, and was heard trying to prevent me from calling for help.”
As a result, Stroud was booked on charges of interfering with an emergency call.
Like many victims of domestic violence, Russo says she still loved and sympathized with her abuser.
“I ended up bailing [Meredith] out, and paying for the legal defense,” she said.
Russo said she often intervened to prevent Stroud from being charged with domestic abuse, noting that the police wanted to charge Stroud in Nov. 2014.
“I was always trying to protect [Meredith] because I knew men’s jail was not kind to transwomen,” Russo said. “She was always threatening suicide if she were to get arrested.” Russo continues, “Even when things were terrible, I was worried for her safety and didn’t want her to kill herself or be beaten to death in prison.”
Russo turned over 53 pages of legal documents to support her allegations.
The divorce record, which features a restraining order against Stroud, includes messages shared between the two in which Stroud admits to abusing Russo. These messages were accepted as evidence by the divorce courts.
In one series of messages from Facebook, Stroud is calmly attempting to diffuse Russo’s desire to proceed with the divorce, offering to go on medication and check into a psychiatric facility for psychosis maintenance.
In this same conversation, Russo expresses fear of Stroud eventually killing her. 
In another, dramatically different text conversation, Stroud says she hopes Russo gets “run over by a f*cking truck” and demands Russo reduce child support payments.
At the time, Stroud was recorded by the court as having an income of $8,300 gross per month, having acquired a substantial six-figure advance from Flatiron Books, the publisher of Stroud’s debut novel, If I Was Your Girl. The court would later order Stroud to pay $1,068 per month.
But Russo says Stroud has not paid child support in years, and currently owes over $20,000 in back payments. In July of 2019, Russo attempted to start a GoFundMe to raise the money needed to legally compel Stroud to pay what was owed. Other than the child support arrangements, Russo did not request alimony or any other financial compensation from the seperation.
After the divorce, Russo says Stroud denigrated her in public, telling fans and followers on social media that Russo was “a TERF who had abused and left” Stroud due to her transition from male to female.
“Many trans people are the victims of violence and discrimination, so [Meredith’s] target audience found that totally relatable and credible. They had no reason to doubt her,” Russo said, noting that both she and her current wife are members of the LGBT community. Russo identifies as non-binary, while her current wife is a transwoman.
“I’ve been harassed quite a bit by Meredith’s social network. I lost a lot of friends and have been largely ostracized from our local LGBT community.” Russo says, “I’ll often be online and someone I don’t know will suddenly jump into a thread to announce I’m the TERF who ruined Meredith Russo’s life.”
Stroud continues to publicly call Russo an abuser, and claims she’s attempting to “destroy” [Stroud’s] career and finances.
The Post Millennial has reached out to Stroud as well as Flatiron-MacMillan Publishing and Stroud’s publishing agent Sarah Barley for comment. While the publishing house and agent did not respond by the time of publication, Stroud denied all allegations while calling The Post Millennial a slew of denigrating names.
When asked about her own admissions of abuse in the court document, Stroud again asserted “Either way, my response to the allegations is that I have not ever sexually or physically abused any of my sexual or romantic partners.”
Stroud claimed, at first, that she was “barred” from speaking about her relationship to her ex-wife by law. When questioned about why she had persistently made social media posts about that very subject, Stroud declined to answer before blocking the account used to contact her.
“Meredith thrives on lies and conflict, and she’s a writer, so she knows how to come up with a good story.” Russo says, “I knew when I left her that I’d become the subject of one of these stories.”
Included in the divorce and restraining order filings was an article Stroud wrote with the intention of submitting it to an LGBT magazine. The article, written as an introspective reflection on the couple’s relationship, states in detail the abuse Stroud subjected Russo to.
And despite Stroud’s public attempts to downplay the arrest, Stroud’s written account supports Russo’s claims that it was she who is responsible for jail bailout and the charges being dropped. 
The document also backs Russo’s assertion that she continued to support and care for her spouse even after the repeated physical and sexual assaults, a far cry from Stroud’s claims on social media that Russo had been the abuser, and callously made Stroud homeless.
Due to Stroud’s continued public assertions that Russo is to blame, as well as the harassment from Stroud’s fans she’s received in the past as a result, Russo says she continues to fear retaliation.
Russo notes that some of the posts Stroud has made include threats of violence. From a now-deleted alternative Twitter account, Stroud posted how she wanted Russo’s friends to be “brutally killed” in the style of a violent horror movie.
“My main hope, in discussing all of this, is that the defamation against myself and my family will stop.” Russo comments, “I’ve worked so hard to rebuild my life in the five years since I left Meredith, and I’m emotionally exhausted by the fact that I’m still being defamed on a daily basis as a ‘TERF’ and abuser, and that it’s affected my family so profoundly.”
Despite everything, Juniper Russo says she does not wish ill upon her former spouse, and supports Stroud’s work in the literary world.
“I still have to believe that there’s some good inside of [Meredith] and that she’s leaving some kind of positive mark on the world. If her books have saved one single teenager from suicide, I’d consider that to outweigh the pain and trauma I’ve had to endure at her hands.” Russo continues on to note that deeply flawed people can sometimes make good art.
“It’s important to be aware that someone who creates inspiring work is not necessarily a good person, and I think it’s dangerous for anyone to look up to Meredith as a role model, or to take anything she says at face value.”
Russo concluded. “Her work, including how she presents herself and speaks of those around her, is fictional. I’d caution anyone against mistaking any of it for reality.”
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
Chick-fil-A turns back on Christian groups, halts donations to Salvation Army
Well known Christian fast-food organization Chick-fil-A has decided to halt funding to two organizations that critics call ‘anti-LGBT,’ and advocates call ‘pro-traditional family.’
For years now, Chick-fil-A, the Georgia-based chicken restaurant has faced backlash from LGBT groups for their hefty donations to The Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
Recently, in Toronto, the opening of the city’s first Chick-fil-A was greeted with large groups of both LGBT and animal rights protestors, making for some viral moments as activists staged ‘die-ins,’ attempted to stop people from entering the restaurant, and yelled customers’ faces with megaphones.
Chick-fil-A told ABC News that they would instead be focusing on donations to groups that prevent homelessness, hunger, and education, starting next year.
“Beginning in 2020 the Chick-fil-A Foundation will introduce a more focused giving approach, donating to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of hunger, homelessness and education,” Chick-fil-A said in a statement Monday.
“We have also proactively disclosed our 2018 tax filing and a preview of 2019 gifts to date on chick-fil-afoundation.org,” the statement continued. “The intent of charitable giving from the Chick-fil-A Foundation is to nourish the potential in every child.”
COO of Chick-fil-A Tim Tassopoulos stated that “no organization will be excluded from future consideration, faith-based or non-faith-based.
Tim Tassopoulos, the president and COO of Chick-fil-A, added that “no organization will be excluded from future consideration, faith-based or non-faith-based.”
“Our goal is to donate to the most effective organizations in the areas of education, homelessness and hunger,” Tassopoulos added.
Previous controversies
Chick-fil-A has long been known as a faithful staple in the fast-food industry, having been described as a restaurant that “sells chicken with a side of Christianity” by the Atlantic in 2014.
The restaurant was founded by the late S. Truett Cathy, who opened the first chicken-sandwich stand in an Atlanta mall in 1967. Cathy, a man of faith, made a conscious effort to incorporate Christianity into his business, even putting Bible quotes on the styrofoam sweet-tea cups, and ensuring that stores remained closed on Sabbath, keeping this rule intact long after many other businesses moved away from similar Blue law policies.
In 2012, Cathy was quoted saying that he believes in the “biblical definition of the marriage,” that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This statement from Cathy, who was 86 at the time, prompted major national attention and controversy.
Cathy’s statement led to a domino effect of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, starting when a New York woman planned an LGBT kissing event at one of the restaurants. This then led to former U.S. presidential candidate and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee holding a “Chick-fil-A appreciation day.”
This is all exasperated by Cathy’s frequent funding to the Salvation Army, which LGBT groups have long accused of being anti-LGBT, thanks largely to comments made by one Australian Salvation Army leader who said that gays “should be put to death.”
To this controversy, the Salvation Army has responded, stating:
“It is important to note that the Army around the world immediately rejected those comments and made public statements against them. We stand by the rejection of those comments still. We sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community and to our clients, employees, donors and volunteers for the offence caused by this misrepresentation of the Army’s views.”
In addition, the Salvation Army also has also pointed out that they do not discriminate against anyone in need, regardless if they are LGBT.
“For more than 130 years, The Salvation Army has had the privilege of serving vulnerable people in over 400 communities across Canada. Last year, we helped over 1.8 million people. We assisted people from the LGBTQ community and will continue to do so. And we employ individuals from the LGBTQ community as well.”
The other group Chick-fil-A frequently donated to, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, was subject to extreme backlash after comments regarding their support of the Bible’s definition of traditional marriage, stating:
“God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.”
A Chick-fil-A spokesperson told Reuters that “We made multi-year commitments to both organizations and we fulfilled those obligations in 2018.”
The spokesperson later refused to comment to Reuters on whether the protests influenced the decision to change donations.
Social Media