Moscow, Idaho (USA)

City officials in Moscow in northern Idaho are considering an ordinance prohibiting discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The city’s Human Rights Commission and the Fair and Affordable Housing Commission are working together to make a joint recommendation to the city council.

News Report.



The Indian Ministry of Social justice and Empowerment will form a board to look into issues of transgender and hijras across the country.

T R Meena, joint secretary said the ministry is entrusted with the responsibility to look into issues related to transgender and hijras and to coordinate with other ministries. J K Mishra, joint director, targeted intervention of Delhi State AIDS Control Society (DSACS) said: “We are going to start a separate targeted intervention for the transgender and hijras in every district of Delhi.”

News Report.

Kirkwood, Missouri (USA)

The Kirkwood City Council voted unanimously to amend its anti-discrimination ordinance to include prohibitions against discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity.

News Report.

Prior Alert.


The Vatican

“The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.”

tl;dr Pope knows sex exists, but he also thinks sex “creates” gender (roles). Pope is wrong, as sex does not create gender.


Clementine Hall
Friday, 21 December 2012


In the Matter of B.A. vs. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (Indiana, USA)

B.A., a child, was abandoned by his biological mother around the age of five years old. Prior to this, B.A. was exposed to significant acts of prostitution and pornography by his mother and was repeatedly raped by one of mother’s boyfriends. Around the age of nine years old, B.A. was adopted by C.A. B.A. suffers from gender identity issues and has been both a victim and perpetrator of sexual abuse, including abuse perpetrated by two older foster children while in C.A.’s care. C.A. described his discipline as being “strict” and spanked B.A. with a paddle. B.A. began to exhibit behavior issues while in C.A.’s care, including storing food and trash around the house. B.A. also started exhibiting physical aggression and throwing tantrums at school. He was once suspended from school for two to three days.

Around September 2010, B.A. was admitted to Community North Hospital for approximately nine or ten days of treatment because of writing a death threat letter. After being discharged from treatment, B.A. was on medication that led to his behavior being more reserved, and he did not exhibit any more behavior issues until February 2011. At that time, B.A. was picked up by the police and taken back to Community North Hospital, where a referral was made for B.A. to receive treatment at Resource, a residential treatment facility in Indianapolis. During this time that B.A. was being treated at Resource, C.A. participated in B.A.’s therapy sessions every other week, with some of the sessions occurring telephonically. Resource’s initial permanency plan for B.A. was for him to be returned to C.A.’s care at the end of September 2011, but there were concerns that reunification might not be appropriate or safe for either B.A. or C.A. because “much therapeutic work needs to be done by both [B.A.] and his father, in order to prepare them for reunification.”

On September 16, 2011, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that B.A., age fifteen at the time, was at Resource, and C.A. was unwilling to either pick up B.A. from the facility or assist B.A. in his treatment. Resource was ready to discharge B.A. from their services and return him to C.A.’s care. The government assistance used, in part, for B.A.’s treatment was expiring, leaving C.A. with the responsibility to pay for the continued treatment costs of B.A. C.A. informed DCS that he was unwilling to take B.A. back into his care due to C.A.’s concerns for his own safety and because C.A. did not feel like B.A.’s treatment was progressing to his standards.

The Indiana Department of Child Services filed a petition alleging B.A. to be a Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS) under Indiana law. DCS assumed responsibility for B.A.’s residential treatment, and B.A.’s permanency plan at Resource changed from being discharged to C.A. to remaining at Resource. Early in the CHINS case, C.A. told the DCS family case manager that he was not interested in visiting B.A., participating in B.A.’s therapy, or working toward reunification with B.A. Throughout the duration of the CHINS case, C.A. did not participate in B.A.’s treatment or visit him at Resource or the Youth Opportunity Center, where B.A. was moved in January 2012. C.A. stated that he feared B.A. and feared for his physical safety with B.A. in the home.

Prior to a fact-finding hearing, C.A. notified the juvenile court that he intended to argue that B.A. should be found to be a CHINS. The juvenile court found that C.A. refused to participate in B.A.’s treatment and had not visited him, thus abandoning the child.

C.A. appealed, ostensibly because he didn’t like the finding that he abandoned the child.

C.A. concedes that B.A. was a CHINS and that B.A. needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he was not receiving or that was unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. His only argument is that the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that B.A.’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of C.A. to supply B.A. with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision.

Here, the evidence presented showed that, when C.A. was notified that Resource was ready to discharge B.A. due to his government assistance expiring, he refused to pick up B.A. from the facility due to concerns for his own safety. C.A. refused to take B.A. back into his care and stated he would only take a “normal” B.A. back into his care. After the CHINS case was filed, the evidence showed that C.A. did not participate in B.A.’s treatment at any point and did not ever go to visit him in the residential facilities. He told the DCS family case manager that he was not willing or interested in participating in therapy, in visiting B.A., or in reunification.

The court concluded that the juvenile court did not err when it found that B.A. was a CHINS . The evidence presented supported the juvenile court’s findings, and the court’s findings supported the judgment.

In the Matter of B.A., Child Alleged To Be In Need of Services, C.A., Father, Appellant-Respondent, vs. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES

Norington v. Mitcheff (Indiana, USA)

Lakesha Norington, also known as Shawntrell Marcel Norington, is in a men’s prison for murdering an HIV-positive man.  Norington sued prison officials in Indiana, claiming that he was denied adequate medical care for gender identity disorder (“GID”) in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ending the lawsuit.  The court noted that medical officials concluded that Norington did not have GID.  Rather, Norington’s “wish for sex-reassignment surgery was driven more by attention seeking and secondary gain rather than distress related to his biological assignment.”

Norington established that he wanted hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery, and was persistent in his request for this treatment over the course of several years. The court concluded that his desire for this treatment, standing alone, does not mean that the United States Constitution entitled him to it.

Norington Decision

Norington’s Prison Record.

Helena, Montana (USA)

Helena, Montana enacted a non-discrimination ordinance to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ordinance defined gender identity as a gender-related identity, expression, or behavior, regardless of the individual’s sex at birth.

The ordinance provides that is will be “unlawful for a place of public accommodation to deny, directly or indirectly, any person full and equal access or enjoyment of the goods, services, activities, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations for a discriminatory reason. However, in any place of public accommodation where users ordinarily appear in the nude, users may be required to use the facilities designated for their anatomical sex,regardless of their gender identity. Such requirement does not constitute unlawful discrimination for purposes of this Section.”

It is unclear if this language addresses sex-segregated restrooms.

News Report.

Prior Alert.


Michigan (USA)

HB 6090 would revamp the Michigan ethnic intimidation statute to add additional penalties for “bias-motivated crimes” based on, among other factors, “gender, gender identity or expression of gender.”  The bill defines “gender, gender identity or expression of gender” as “a person’s actual or perceived gender or gender-related appearance, self-image, behavior, or expression, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

HB 6090.


Trans Student v. School District (USA)

Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund resolved a claim on behalf of a 12-year-old transgender girl excluded from school because the student wore girls’ clothing and asked to be called by a girl’s name.

After the child  was diagnosed with Juvenile Gender Identity Disorder, the child’s parents asked the school district to transfer the child to a new elementary school and to allow the child to wear girls’ clothing and attend school using the name the child prefers rather than the child’s legal male name.

The school district refused to allow the child to attend school as “a girl” or to wear girls’ clothing. The district stated that the child would “be required to dress as a boy or in gender neutral attire.” The school district insisted that the child’s mere presence in school as a girl “would disrupt and interfere with the learning environment” at the school.

Because the child refused to attend school as a boy, the parents opted to home school the child rather than force the child to dress and attend school as a boy.  The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund wrote to the school district and requested that it reconsider its position.  The school district allowed the child to return to class in a new school, wearing girls’ clothing and called a “girl’s name.”

School District Letter to Parents

Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund to school district

Titlow v. CMS Inc.(Michigan, USA)


A Michigan prison inmate with gender identity disorder can sue a doctor and a guard accused of ignoring problems with his breasts. Vonlee Titlow says a corrections officer snickered and failed to seek medical care when he complained about pain in his breasts in 2006.   Titlow is male but considers himself a female and received silicone injections to increase his breast size before entering prison in 2002.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit will allow  Titlow’ lawsuit to proceed.  The 45-year-old Titlow is in prison for second-degree murder in Oakland County.

Titlow v. CMS Inc.