Archives‎ > ‎

Trans woman wins Womens cycling championship, from Peter Myers

(1) Trans woman wins Womens cycling world championship, accused of cheating

(2) Martina Navratilova says people born male should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports

(3) Trans laws permits biological males entry into women's toilets, refuges and prisons

(4) Trans activists accuse feminist Sheila Jeffreys of 'Hate speech'

(5) Bettina Arndt wraps up her Fake Rape Campus tour for 2018

(6) Lesbians who filed Complaint against Baker for not making Wedding Cake wore Hidden Microphones

(7) UK Supreme Court: no obligation to bake cake with pro-sodomy-propaganda


(1) Trans woman wins Womens cycling world championship, accused of cheating

{visit the site to see the photos}

Transgender Canadian woman sets off debate after winning cycling world championship

Critics accuse Dr. Rachel McKinnon of cheating after taking gold in women's competition

Tanya Casole-Gouveia · CBC Sports · October 17

{photo} Transgender woman Rachel McKinnon, centre, celebrates her first-place finish at UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championship in Los Angeles on Sunday. (Twitter/@RachelMcKinnon)

A Canadian transgender athlete has become the first to ever win gold at the UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championship.

Dr. Rachel McKinnon, from Victoria, B.C., finished first in the women's 35-44 age bracket in Los Angeles on Sunday. McKinnon was born biologically male. ...

Others on social media accused the athlete of cheating, claiming her competing is unfair to cisgender women.


(2) Martina Navratilova says people born male should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports

Martina Navratilova in 'transphobic' row over comments about women's sport

21 DECEMBER 2018 • 9:30PM

Martina Navratilova has angered the transgender community by claiming that people who were born male should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports events.

The former Wimbledon champion and LGBT campaigner made the statement on social media, and was swiftly accused of being “transphobic”.

Responding to a question from one of her followers about transgender women in sport, Navratilova said: “Clearly that can’t be right. You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

She also said: “For me it’s all about fairness. Which means taking every case individually… there is no cookie cutter way of doing things.”

Her comments were seized upon by Dr Rachel McKinnon, a transgender activist and competitive cyclist who this year controversially won a women’s event at the UCI Masters Track World Championship.

McKinnon, a Canadian, was born biologically male but transitioned in her 20s. She told her followers that Navratilova was “transphobic” and called on her to apologise, sending a stream of critical tweets.

“Genitals do not play sports. What part of a penis is related to tennis? How does that ‘level’ any playing field?” McKinnon asked.

She also told Navratilova, who won Wimbledon nine times and is regarded by many as the greatest female tennis player of all time: “You realise I’m a world champion trans woman athlete?”

Initially, Navratilova said: “I am sorry if I said anything anywhere near transphobic - certainly I meant no harm. I will educate myself better on this issue but meantime I will be quiet about it.” She also deleted the original tweet.

However, after receiving a stream of critical messages from McKinnon, Navratilova hit back: “Rachel, you might be an expert on all things trans but you are one nasty human being.”

She added that she did not regret her remark and would not be “bullied” into silence, but would bow out of the conversation “because it seems to be my decades of speaking out against unfairness and inequality just don’t count with you at all”. ...

Competitive cycling, as with tennis, falls in line with International Olympic Committee policy which states that trans athletes can compete in their new gender provided testosterone levels are below a certain limit. ...


(3) Trans laws permits biological males entry into women's toilets, refuges and prisons

The year of trans tyranny

In 2018, trans activism became even more violent and censorious.

 Joanna Williams

26th December 2018

Who could have guessed, even a decade ago, that in 2018 the word ‘woman’ would be treated as an expletive? It’s become a dangerous word, either erased from public life altogether or discussed in apologetic, hushed tones. Bizarrely, what ‘woman’ signifies now needs explanation. But anyone brave enough to define women in relation to biology, to make reference to ‘sex’ or ‘female’, risks vilification and public shaming. In a very short space of time we have moved from the premise that men and women exist as fundamentally distinct biological entities with tolerance shown to a small minority of people who chose to live differently, to transgenderism as an ideology that insists all aspects of public life must comply with its demands.

2018 was the year the government consulted over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. The consultation was never intended to question the right of transgender people to exist, still less to threaten legal rights and protections women have won. It did, however, ask about the processes individuals should have to go through in order to be legally recognised as a member of the opposite sex. The proposed changes will do away with the necessity for medical diagnoses, surgery, or living as member of the preferred sex for a substantial period of time. Instead, self-identification, a simple declaration, will be enough for a man to become a woman in the eyes of the law. As many women have pointed out, this erodes all meaning from the concept of sex and permits biological males entry into women-only spaces, such as public toilets, refuges and prisons.

Unsurprisingly, women wanted to discuss the impact that the changes to the Gender Recognition Act might have on their lives. But even having this discussion, just the suggestion that ‘woman’ might mean more than a feeling (however apparently innate or supposedly genetically determined), was seen by activists as denying the right of trans people to exist. All hint of debate had to be wiped out. Women wanting to meet had to plan in secret, revealing venues only at the last minute and risking violent attack if they were discovered. Even then, public meetings, such as one planned to take place at a council building in Leeds, were cancelled following accusations of transphobia. A spokesman said the feminist group’s values were ‘not in line with Leeds City Council’s values and policies on equality and inclusion’.

At every point, public officials, members of the establishment, have acquiesced to the demands of the trans lobby without pause for reflection. When Maria Maclachlan appeared in court to give evidence against Tara Wolf, a young male trans activist who had physically assaulted her ahead of a meeting on the Gender Recognition Act, the judge stopped proceedings to insist Maclachlan refer to the defendant as ‘she’ throughout the trial.

On campus, academics who question trans thinking have found themselves subject to abuse and calls for their research to be shut down. Activists drew up a list of ‘dangerous’ women – people such as Professor Rosa Freedman, an expert in human-rights law who argues males should not have access to women’s refuges, and Professor Kathleen Stock, who has questioned whether the category of woman should be expanded to include men who identify as women. These women are accused of spreading ‘hate speech’ and being a threat to the safety of students. It’s not just in the UK. Brown University in the US withdrew its own study on transgender youth because it found that social media and friends can influence teenagers to change their gender identity following complaints that the research ‘might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community’.

Meanwhile, in London the Wellcome Collection decided it was best to avoid controversy by entirely removing the word ‘women’ from one of its events. It referred instead to ‘womxn’. Wellcome was following in the footsteps of the National Union of Students, which chose to abolish women’s toilets at its annual trans conference. Organisers boasted of ‘a disabled toilet with a gender-neutral sign, gender-neutral toilets (formerly women’s toilets), another disabled toilet and men’s toilet’. While men clearly still existed, the gender formerly known as women had been effectively neutralised.

New words are created in order to avoid the apparently offensive term ‘women’. In New York, Planned Parenthood celebrated the end of the tampon tax by calling on ‘menstruators’ to #TweetTheReceipt. The Guardian followed suit and, in a now corrected article, asked ‘menstruators’ to comment on their experiences of period pain at work. It is hard to know what is worse: the fact that in 2018 women with busy and successful lives were expected to discuss periods and tampons every two minutes, or that they were labelled solely according to this bodily function.

But it did get worse. The charity Cancer Research decided to remove the word ‘women’ from its cervical cancer campaign. Rather than urging women to go for smear tests, it appealed to ‘anyone with a cervix’. As no woman has ever referred to herself as ‘a person with a cervix’, there’s a real danger that misguided deference to trans activists will mean some women end up missing out on medical check-ups specific to their sex.

Sadly, it seems that the interests of women are always now secondary to the demands of the trans lobby. In 2018 a record number of male prisoners in England and Wales transitioned, with more than 20 men now being detained in women’s jails. Unsurprisingly, there have been reports of a growing number of sexual assaults on female inmates.

When trans activists fail to convince adults of their cause, they simply turn to children as a more docile and captive audience. This week, teachers in Brighton have been advised by the city council to instruct pupils that ‘boys can have periods, too’ in new sex-education classes. How this sits with biology classes on reproduction is anyone’s guess. ‘Menstruation must be inclusive of all genders’ – that is the advice to teachers of baffled 10- and 11-year-olds.

In 2018, trans activists have shown themselves to be violent and censorious. No woman is too vulnerable and no child too young to be spared their campaign of intimidation. Tragically, government ministers and local-council officials, judges, medical professionals and the media and cultural elites have either enthusiastically embraced the trans agenda or are too cowardly to challenge it. Thankfully, the majority of people not in these positions – including many trans people – see through the bullying. In playgrounds and parks, shops and buses, people still refer to each other as men and women, boys and girls, without a second thought. I hope it’s their voice we hear more from next year.

Joanna Williams is associate editor at spiked. Her new book, Women vs Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars, is out now.


(4) Trans activists accuse feminist Sheila Jeffreys of 'Hate speech'

Sheila Jeffreys

Let us be free to debate transgenderism without being accused of 'hate speech'

Sheila Jeffreys

Researchers and theorists who question the practice of transgenderism are subjected to campaigns of intimidation

Wed 30 May 2012 02.04 AEST First published on Wed 30 May 2012 02.04 AEST

Criticism of the practice of transgenderism is being censored as a result of a campaign of vilification by transgender activists of anyone who does not accept the new orthodoxy on this issue. A recent Comment is free piece by the transgender activist Roz Kaveney, headlined "Radical feminists are acting like a cult", criticises a forthcoming radical feminist conference, at which I was to be a speaker, on the grounds that I and "my supporters" may be guilty of "hate speech" for our political criticism of this practice.

Though Kaveney's comments about me are comparatively mild in tone, the campaign by transgender activists in general is anything but. This particular campaign persuaded Conway Hall, the conference venue, to ban me from speaking on the grounds that I "foster hatred" and "actively discriminate". On being asked to account for this, Conway Hall appeared to compare me to "David Irving the holocaust denier". The proffered evidence consists of quotes from me arguing that transgender surgery should be considered a human rights violation – hardly evidence of hate speech.

For several years there has been a concerted campaign via the internet and on the ground, to ensure that I, and any other persons who have criticised transgenderism, from any academic discipline, are not given opportunities to speak in public. I have not yet spoken in public about transgenderism, but do speak about religion and women's human rights, about pornography, and about beauty practices.

Whatever the topic of my presentation, and whether in Australia, the UK or the US, transgender activists bombard the organising group and the venue with emails accusing me of transhate, transphobia, hate speech, and seek to have me banned. On blogs, Facebook and Twitter they accuse me of wanting to "eliminate" transgendered persons, and they wish me dead. One activist has created an image of a pesticide can bearing a photo of me and the slogan "kills rad fems instantly". These activists threaten demonstrations and placards against me at any venue where I speak.

What is clear is that transgender activists do not want any criticism of the practice to be made. They do not just target me, but the few other feminists who have ever been critical. Germaine Greer was glitterbombed, a practice that can be seen as assault and can endanger eyesight, in Sydney this year, though it is many years since she said anything critical of transgenderism.

Psychiatrists and sexologists who are critical of the practice are targeted too. Transgender activism was successful in gaining the cancellation of a London conference entitled Transgender: Time for Change, organised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists' lesbian and gay special interest group for May 2011. When, in 2003, US sexologist Michael Bailey published a book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, which argued that transgenderism was a practice based on sexual fetishism, he became subject to a campaign of vilification, which included placing photographs of his children on a website with insulting captions. The effect is to scare off any researchers from touching the topic.

There are many aspects of the practice which bear investigation, including the history and social construction of the idea of transgenderism, the recent increased identification of children as transgender, the phenomenon of transgender regrets, that is those persons who consider they have made a mistake. Given that the drug and surgical treatments have now been normalised and are increasingly embarked upon by young lesbians and sought out by parents for young children, it is most important that the rights of researchers and theorists to comment and investigate should be protected.

Instead, they are subjected to determined campaigns of bullying, intimidation and attempts to shut them down. The degree of vituperation and the energy expended by the activists may suggest that they fear the practice of transgenderism could justifiably be subjected to criticism, and might not stand up to rigorous research and debate, if critics were allowed to speak out.


(5) Bettina Arndt wraps up her Fake Rape Campus tour for 2018


 Nov 12

Well, I have just completed the final talk in my Fake Rape Campus tour for this year

Bettina Arndt is currently touring Australian Universities, speaking about the so-called 'rape crisis' on our campuses. She's asking why our higher education sector is lying about the safety of our universities for young women, even after the Australian Human Rights Commission survey showed over 99% of students said they hadn't experienced sexual assault.


(6) Lesbians who filed Complaint against Baker for not making Wedding Cake wore Hidden Microphones

Lesbians Who Filed Complaint Against Baker for Not Making Wedding Cake Wore Hidden Microphones: Report

By Heather Clark on November 10, 2018

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — Two lesbians who filed a complaint against a Christian baker after she declined to make a cake for a same-sex celebration wore hidden microphones to record the refusal, according to a press release from the baker’s attorneys.

“The evidence shows that this was all a set-up to get money and to destroy Cathy for her Christian faith,” said Charles LiMandri, attorney with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund. “The couple never intended to actually celebrate their marriage with a custom cake from Tastries. We hope as this case moves forward, the full truth will come to light.”

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) recently filed a new lawsuit against Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, seeking financial damages for emotional distress suffered by the two women.

“Although they wanted only a simple wedding cake, the couple’s quest did not proceed as smoothly as their search for a venue. They visited several local bakeries and tasted cakes, but had been unsuccessful in their search when Eileen serendipitously drove past a bakery called Tastries,” the lawsuit states.

The women then found a “simple cake design” they liked in a display case and wanted to have it replicated, but when they returned for a tasting a week later, Miller referred them to another bakery after realizing the order was for a same-sex celebration.

“Tastries’ explicit refusal to sell the Rodriguez-Del Rios a wedding cake because they intended to celebrate their wedding so devastated the couple that they considered purchasing a premade, non-wedding cake from a grocery or big box store,” the complaint reads. “Once exciting, planning their wedding reception became a painful and emotionally upsetting process.”

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund opines, however, that the women’s claims don’t add up.

“Although the lawsuit claims ‘Eileen and Mireya did not know what to do’ after the incident, the record shows the couple immediately took to social media, and within 30 minutes Miller began receiving death threats and emails containing images of people engaging in depraved sexual acts. News crews arrived shortly afterward,” the organization outlines.

The lawsuit also asserts that the women suffered both physically and emotionally, stating that “Mireya’s nose started to bleed—which was completely out of the ordinary—and she got a headache.” It further contends that “[a]lthough she tried to contain her emotions, Eileen later broke down, and her emotional anguish aggravated her rheumatoid arthritis.”

Miller’s attorneys say that they learned during the investigation stage of the case that the women had come prepared with hidden microphones, which raised questions about their motives.

“Despite the couple’s claim that they were ‘[s]tunned, hurt, and offended,’ facts discovered during investigation shows that the couple had intentionally been searching for a business that would ‘discriminate’ against them, wearing hidden microphones to catch a business owner in the act,” outlined the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.

As previously reported, the two women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, who “married” in December 2016, went to Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake, which was to be for their reception. They found one they liked, and came back days later for a tasting, during which time they were directed by an employee to meet with Miller.

Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, offered to call another baker who could accommodate them after she learned that the cake was for a same-sex celebration as she herself could not be a part of the event.

“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller told ABC23 News. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”

The women, upset that she had offered a referral instead of creating the cake herself, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the DFEH, which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law.

The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.

In February 2018, Judge David Lampe ruled in favor of Miller, differentiating between a legitimate case of discrimination if a person refused to sell a generic product on the shelf, with declining to specially create a cake that celebrates an event that one’s religion prohibits.

“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake,” he wrote. “The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.”

“A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” Lampe also noted. “The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”

He said that the women had ample alternatives as “Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield.”

On Oct. 17, a new complaint was filed against Miller, seeking damages for emotional distress and an injunction that would require her to create and/or cakes for same-sex events. It also has petitioned the state court of appeals to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Lampe to change his order.

“Tastries does not ask customers ordering a ‘custom’ wedding cake whether either member of the couple being celebrated has been divorced or has had a child while unmarried,” the lawsuit argues.

“Tastries’ employees have delivered wedding cakes while wearing clothing not marked in any manner identifying them as employees of Tastries. Tastries sometimes delivers wedding cakes at a time when no guests or members of the wedding party are present,” it says.

The DFEH is asking the court to order Miller not to refuse any further cakes for same-sex celebrations and to conduct employee training for the next five years in regard to the matter, “[s]ubmit[ting] an annual report to the DFEH for five years identifying any services defendants deny to customers based on free speech or religious grounds.”

It also asks that Miller be ordered to “[j]ointly and severally pay to the Rodriguez-Del Rios actual damages, including but not limited to their out-of-pocket damages, expenses incurred in filing and pursuing their complaint of discrimination, and emotional distress damages for each Unruh Act violation up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than $4,000 per offense, plus interest,” as well as punitive damages.

“This meritless lawsuit is proof that California’s pro-LGBT bureaucrats will stop at nothing until Cathy is put out of business,” LiMandri said. “For over a year, Cathy’s family and employees have faced death threats, lewd messages, and vandalism. The sad truth is if the government wins, then no Christian business owner will be safe from persecution.”


(7) UK Supreme Court: no obligation to bake cake with pro-sodomy-propaganda

UK Supreme Court: no obligation to bake cake with pro-sodomy-propaganda

OCTOBER 11, 2018

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously decided that  the refusal to bake a cake with the message “Support Gay Marriage” on it cannot be qualified as “discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

The judges emphasized the importance of the right to freedom from forced speech, pointing out that “the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and to freedom of expression … include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold…”.

This is a spectacular defeat for the sodomy lobby, which has consistently tried to use so-called “anti-discrimination” laws to seek out and harass opponents of their perverse ideology. In the case at hand, the plaintiff, a well-known pro-sodomy activist, made a point of having a cake with his pro-sodomy message baked by a bakery whose owners are known to be devout Christians. But the bakers refused his order not because of who he was, but because of what he ordered.

It is hoped that today’s ruling will set an end to the uncivil and harassing misuse of anti-discrimination laws by LGBT activists.

It is noteworthy, however, that the plaintiffs had all their legal expenses covered by a state-run quango, the UK’s Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which spent more than £ 250.000 of taxpayers’ money on the case. The defendants, by contrast, had to spend their own money and rely on the support of a donation-funded Christian charity group. It is time now to examine and set an end to this gross misuse of public funds, which is also a clear violation of the Right to a Fair Trial as set out in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. If Sodo-Activism had to foot its own legal bills, it would probably not be taking place.

-- Peter Myerswebsite: