The girls plan to appeal the judge’s decision which would effectively end women’s sports state-wide
The current prospective study examined the clinical characteristics of children (including adolescents) presenting to a newly established, multidisciplinary Gender Service in New South Wales, Australia, along with the challenges that clinicians faced in providing clinical services to these patients and their families. We found that the clinical characteristics of the children presenting to our service were comparable to those described by other paediatric clinics: a slight preponderance of biological females to males and high levels of distress and comorbid mental health disorders. While previous studies of children have highlighted high rates of abuse, bullying, discrimination, victimization, and family rejection or lack of family support in a general way—often under an umbrella heading of “abuse and victimization experiences” (p326) (Chew et al., 2020)—the results from our study, including the developmental stories told by the children and their families, highlight that many of these experiences have occurred within the family setting itself. That is, our results highlight that many of the ACEs reported by the children and families—family conflict, bullying, parental mental illness, financial stress, maltreatment, and a breakdown of the family system—occur within the family system itself and that the ACEs reflect a long-standing history of relational stress and a chronic disruption of what are normally comfortable and nurturing attachments.
Our study found that the children and families who came to the clinic had clear, preformed expectations: most often, children and families wanted a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to be provided or confirmed, together with referral to endocrinology services to pursue medical treatment of gender dysphoria. . . . It was our impression that these expectations had been shaped by the dominant sociopolitical discourse—the gender affirmative model. It will be interesting to track the expectations of children and families in the years to come as sociopolitical discourses become more varied and diverse and as the voices are heard of both those who have done well and those who not done well via the medical pathway.
Source: Australian children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Clinical presentations and challenges experienced by a multidisciplinary team and gender service – Kasia Kozlowska, Georgia McClure, Catherine Chudleigh, Ann M Maguire, Danielle Gessler, Stephen Scher, Geoffrey R Ambler, 2021
Probably few Tasmanian voters going to the polls on May 1 will be aware that their recently dissolved Parliament was responsible for some of the most radical (and incoherent) legislation in the world concerning gender issues. Remarkably, it was passed from opposition by Labor and Greens MPs in 2019. It was supported in the Legislative Assembly by Speaker Sue Hickey, a member of the Liberal Party at that time, who voted against the position of the Government. The changes were also supported in the Legislative Council by a sufficient number of independents.
The legislation was the Justice and Related Legislation (Marriage and Gender Amendments) Act 2019 . It allows a person 16 years or older to register ‘a gender’ which has the effect of amending the birth register, and for parents to do so for a child under 16. The application must be accompanied by a “gender declaration”. This is a statutory declaration in which the person declares that he or she identifies as being of the gender specified and lives, or seeks to live, as a person of that gender.
The problem with the Tasmanian legislation is that it begins from the premise that sex and gender are different, and then concludes that gender is the same as sex once someone fills in a form which is accepted by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Through an application to an administrator without more, a person can, in essence, change their sex for legal purposes in Tasmanian law.
The intentions of the Parliament to make it possible for transgender people to identify as another gender without sex reassignment surgery could have been fulfilled in a range of ways without embracing unscientific and highly controversial beliefs. People who self-identify as the opposite sex could have been given a gender recognition certificate for the purposes of indicating gender on driving licences or other such official documents. This does not impact upon the rights of anyone else.
Is it so unreasonable for Tasmanians to want their birth certificates to be what they are meant to be – a record of their birth? If 99.98% of the Tasmanian population have no difficulty with their sex or gender, and have not sought to change official records, should policy be dictated by tiny minorities who would like to see sex at birth erased from public records?
The Tasmanian Parliament, recently dissolved, lost its way in a fog of ideological confusion and unscientific beliefs. The new Parliament needs to do better, and to take account of the beliefs of the large majority of people who do not have degrees in gender studies.
The Arcus Foundation has allocated 9 million dollars exclusively to Transgender causes. Interestingly if you search for the mention of “transmen” specific projects you will not find any. However some of the projects detailed do focus on “Transwomen” usually Transwomen of colour.
As I have noted before “transmen” tend to get deployed when they are pregnant or when it is easier to argue aganst the, sex based, rights of biological women. Their omission from any specific projects aimed at the needs of “transmen” screams good, old-fashioned, sexism to me!
It appears another tactic was to join with women Fighting for reproductive justice. This means that women’s fight to control their fertility is hijacked with trans organisations hitching their wagon to these long running campaigns. This grant is pretty transparent about its “strategic collaboration”.
Another surprise, to me, is how much of a proportion is going to religion organisations including Evangelical Christians and Muslim organisations. Next time anyone tells you that you are in an alliance with religious groups heres a screenshot to share! Over $10 and a half million to religiouis organisations. These organisations were not simply those who you might have expected to hold liberal, progressive views on homosexuality or Gender Identity. Instead many in the United States were explicity Evangelical Christian Organisations deep in what we may have come to know as Trump supporting territory.
You will find similiar examples of “forced teaming” if you look at the grants focussed on racial justice or homelessness. There are also lots of grants to organisations looking at strategic litigation in the area of LGBTQ or exlusively “Transgender” organisations. A few projects are also engaged in educating/lobbying employees of the United Nations.
Many of the entries also talk of funding to “grow grassroots” activists. Somebody should explain that grassroots movements emerge organically. When you are targetting millions of dollars of funding to “grow” a movement you are engaged in Astro-turfing not grass roots activism.
The media narrative also comes in for some skilful manipulation. These are the organisations involved in journalism or documentary film-making who are taking the Arcus Cash. The explicit aim is to ensure media coverage is shaped by the Trans Lobby.
As many of us are trying to point out to radical leftist groups who are screaming “transwomen are women” ,or other mindless mantras, mainly at feminists of the left, you are being manipulated by billionnaires. This is not a grass roots movement its an elite project and there is a lot of money to be made in fostering a bodily dissassociative condition that unmoors us from our sexed bodies.
Gender-neutral toilets could soon become mandatory in all workplaces in one major Australian state. A probe is already underway with WorkSafe in Victoria.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held . . . that public universities cannot compel professors to respect student pronoun preferences. Per the court, such speech is protected under the First Amendment, particularly if pronoun preferences go against a professor’s religious or philosophical beliefs.
This decision comes amidst a wave of transgender-rights cases currently ongoing across the US. Alabama is on track to pass a bill that would make providing any gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth a felony. Several states are also considering or have recently passed bills that would prohibit transgender youth from playing school sports on teams that align with their gender identity.
Rape suspects are able to self-identify as female, it was revealed after a freedom of information request by a feminist policy think-tank.
Police Scotland said that if a rape or attempted rape was perpetrated by a “male who self-identifies as a woman . . . the male who self-identifies as a woman would be expected to be recorded as a female on relevant police systems.”
A woman was interested to know how many inmates in Washington state identify as transgender, and how many of those transgender identified inmates have been given transfers to go from men’s prison to women’s prison, and the reverse. To get this information, she filed a Freedom on Information Act request. Instead of getting the information she requested, she got sued by the ACLU.
WoLF is fighting the injunction, which aims to prevent the public from obtaining information about the number of male prisoners currently housed in women’s prisons.
“I started requesting information about what is happening in US prisons after learning about cases abroad where violent male offenders were housed in women’s prisons,” the woman who made the request told The Post Millennial, “including a case where a woman became pregnant as a result. Due to the shameful lack of impartial media reporting on this issue, the public can’t trust the institutions we’ve come to rely on to get accurate information.
The Washington Department of Corrections did not respond to the public request within the given time period, and WoLF tells The Post Millennial that is is unclear as to how the ACLU got wind of this FOIA request, and had time to put together a lawsuit, within the 10 days from which the request was made.
The woman is not wrong. In fact, Washington state radio host Dori Monson has detailed several accounts of women who are housed in women’s prisons in the state and have been raped by gender non-conforming males who identify as transgender and have successfully been transferred into women’s prisons. Monson writes that there were “two inmates moved from male to female prison. One is a serial killer who admitted to killing prostitutes and hating women, another is a sex offender charged with having sex with a 12 year old.”
In California, after a bill was passed in July 2020 that authorized inmates to be housed according to gender identity and not biological sex, despite their status as regards sex reassignment surgery, more than 260 inmates have requested a transfer since the beginning of the year when the law took effect. California also has a policy of funding sex reassignment surgeries for inmates, and prior to the new law, once a biological male prisoner had undergone that surgery, namely castration, that person could be transferred to a women’s prison. This resulted in the case of a notorious baby killer undergoing the surgery and then being transferred into the same prison where the women whose children he killed is housed.
Women, including former inmates, have launched protests, but it’s nearly impossible to figure out what’s going on because once a biological male identifies as female, the Correctional Services of Canada officially records them as female. This means, additionally, that the crimes those biological men committed before they self-identified as women are recorded as crimes committed by women. And the numbers as regards the sex-breakdown of inmates in women’s prisons is not accurate.