In July 2016 Shauna Smith, a man who identifies as a transgender woman, entered an Target store in Ammon, Idaho and used an iPhone to film an 18-year-old woman while she tried on swimsuits in the fitting room. The victim’s mother confronted him during the incident and he immediately fled on foot, but was later arrested following review of the surveillance footage and interviews with witnesses.
In October 2016 Smith pled guilty to “felony video voyeurism by installing or permitting the use of an imaging device without mutual consent.” In January 2017 he was sentenced to two to five years in prison (and his request for 24 hours prior to incarceration was denied) and added to the sex offender registry.
According to the victim, who “remains terrified of public restrooms and dressing rooms for fear that someone will invade her privacy again,” “I never thought this would happen. I always supported the transgender community, but I felt a little betrayed.”
Transgender voyeur sentenced to prison — postregister.com
In December 2016, The National Women’s Hockey League (NWHL) released a new Policy on Participation of Transgender Athletes. The new policy was created through “a joint effort between the NWHL and You Can Play” along with “additional counsel from policy and law advisors from the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)” and outlines the guidelines and process for determining eligibility for “athletes choosing to express their gender beyond the binary of female and male.”
Read the entire policy below:
National Women’s Hockey League Policy on Participation of Transgender Athletes
Kristen McKay, a man who identifies as a transgender woman, filed a complaint with the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission “alleging she was refused service at a local salon because of her transgender status.”
McKay claims he went in to Carrie’s Esthetic Salon in Charlottetown to get his nails and makeup done, and for makeup lessons, but was told the salon didn’t serve men. When McKay argued that he’s a transgender woman, not a man, and was still refused service, he got upset and “filed a complaint with P.E.I. Human Rights Commission and went to the media with her story.” McKay stated, “I felt like I was a piece of garbage. I was worthless,” illustrating entitlement and his hurt feelings.
“It is discrimination. I’m a human being. I have rights and people should know what people’s rights are and if you’re going to run a business you should know what rights are,” said McKay.
According to the salon owner Carrie MacFayden, who is also the salon’s only employee, she refused service because she did not feel safe alone with McKay, who “is often standing or sitting on the street where MacFadyen parks her car.” Her uneasiness regarding McKay was confirmed when he entered her shop demanding service and left yelling because she wouldn’t give him what he wanted.
In a written statement following the incident, MacFayden stated, “It is unfortunate that the situation is being referred to as a transgender issue when the only issue is about my safety. I have absolutely no issues with transgender people and support their cause.”
Transgender woman files human rights complaint alleging discrimination at salon — cbc.ca
In June Ontario lawmakers passed Bill 89, also known as “The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017,” by a vote of 63 to 23. The new law replaces the Child and Family Services Act and adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of factors to be considered when determining “the best interests of the child” and instructs parents to “to direct the child’s or young person’s education and upbringing, in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”
According to the bill’s founder, Michael Coteau, “I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently.”
Read the full bill here: Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14 – Bill 89
New Ontario law allows govt to seize children if parents oppose their ‘gender identity’ — rt.com
Ontario Makes Disapproval Of Kid’s Gender Choice Potential Child Abuse — daily caller
In a recently published paper in The New Atlantis titled “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria,” authors Paul W. Hruz, Lawrence S. Mayer, and Paul R. McHugh argue that “the evidence for the safety and efficacy of puberty suppression is thin, based more on the subjective judgments of clinicians than on rigorous empirical evidence. It is, in this sense, still experimental — yet it is an experiment being conducted in an uncontrolled and unsystematic manner.”
According to the authors, “The claim that puberty-blocking treatments are fully reversible makes them appear less drastic, but this claim is not supported by scientific evidence. It remains unknown whether or not ordinary sex-typical puberty will resume following the suppression of puberty in patients with gender dysphoria. It is also unclear whether children would be able to develop normal reproductive functions if they were to withdraw from puberty suppression. It likewise remains unclear whether bone and muscle development will proceed normally for these children if they resume puberty as their biological sex. Furthermore, we do not fully understand the psychological consequences of using puberty suppression to treat young people with gender dysphoria.”
“Physicians should be cautious about embracing experimental therapies in general, but especially those intended for children, and should particularly avoid any experimental therapy that has virtually no scientific evidence of effectiveness or safety. Regardless of the good intentions of the physicians and parents, to expose young people to such treatments is to endanger them.”
Read the full paper here: Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria — The New Atlantis
Hormone therapy is a horrible risk for kids — New York Post
Yvette Cormier is a woman who objected to the presence of a man in the women’s locker room at a Planet Fitness gym in Michigan and who filed a lawsuit against the gym following the cancelation of her membership. On Wednesday, July 12 Cormier’s attorney, David Kallman, filed for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Cormier’s complaint states, “The lower courts erroneously held that Defendants did not invited Mrs. Cormier’s right to privacy by allowing a man to be present in and use the women’s locker room and showers. Mrs. Cormier respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reverse the holdings of the lower courts and remand this case for trial.”
We support Ms. Cormier’s lawsuit, and the right of all women to object to the presence of men in women’s spaces.
Read the full complaint here: Cormier v. Planet Fitness
Yvette Cormier v. @PlanetFitness (USA) — Gender Identity Watch
Planet Fitness transgender locker room case heads to Michigan Supreme Court — MLive
In March of 2017 Joel Doe, a high school student in the Boyertown Area School District, and his parents filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging the Defendants “intentionally violated the bodily privacy rights of students by exposing them involuntarily to members of the opposite sex within private facilities like locker rooms and restrooms.” In April three additional students joined the lawsuit, which is set to be heard by a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Monday.
The complaint alleges “intentional violation of students’ fundamental
right to bodily privacy contrary to constitutional and statutory principles, including
the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IX, invasion of seclusion, and the Pennsylvania’s
Public School Code of 1949, which requires separate facilities on the basis of sex.”
According to the complaint, “The Defendants, without parent or student notification, authorized multiple students to have unrestricted access to enter and use the private facilities of the opposite sex.”
“By adopting gender identity theory as the basis for regulating access to private facilities, Defendants are violating sex discrimination law by not protecting students based on sex but instead imposing an individual’s subjective perception of their gender on other students who value their privacy based on anatomical differences between the sexes.”
Doe v. Boyertown Area School District — amended complaint
Federal Judge Set to Hear Suit on Transgender School Policy — usnews.com
Student sues Pennsylvania school district for sexual harassment, violation of personal privacy — ADF
Three students join bodily privacy suit against Pennsylvania school district — ADF