Christine Hallquist, previously known as David Hallquist, is a 62-year-old man that identifies as a woman. A former CEO of the 107-employee Vermont Electric Cooperative and biological father of three children, Hallquist received the 2018 Democratic Party nomination for Governor of Vermont.
In a media interview with CBS News, Hallquist admits he “has all the physical body parts of a man,” but describes his gender identity (his sense of self) this way, saying: “My brain believes I am a woman. I’m a woman.” The internal conflict is reported to have given him thoughts of suicide in the past.
The Pentagon’s 2018 “Department Of Defense Report And Recommendations On Military Service By Transgender Persons,” which recommended a ban on transgender people serving, describes the DSM V criteria for “feeling like the opposite sex” in this manner: “A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender ( or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).”
News articles about Christine Hallquist can be found at these locations:
Mona Charen (August 16, 2018). Liberals go gaga over ‘historic’ win by transgender candidate. Chicago.suntimes.com (Archive)
Terri Hallenbeck (November 4, 2015). Becoming Christine: Transgender CEO Hallquist Prepares to Go to Work As a Woman. Sevendaysvt.com (Archive)
Darren Perron (September 11, 2015). From Dave to Christine: Vt. CEO shares transgender experience. Cbsnews.com (Archive)
Vermont Business Magazine (September 11, 2015). VEC CEO Hallquist comes out as transgender. VermontBiz.com (Archive)
Darren Perron (September 10, 2015). Powerful Transformation. Internet Archive from WCAX.com (Archive)
Drew Adams is a 17-year-old student at Nease High School in St Johns County, Florida. Adams, born female, identifies as a boy. Seeking to be treated like “all other boys,” Adams has sought access to the male bathrooms at the school. As they have in many such cases across the nation, Lambda legal filed suit on Adam’s behalf.
According to the 2017 complaint: “Even though Drew’s sex assigned at birth was female, and even before he was aware that transgender people existed, Drew knew that his body did not feel like it fit him.” The complaint says: “Drew first began to understand why he felt the way he did when he was 14 years old, and saw a transgender man interviewed on television. When Drew heard the man describe what it meant to be transgender, everything clicked for Drew, and he immediately realized that he felt the same way.”
Included among the many factual allegations of the complaint are these two notable statements: “Gender identity — a person’s core internal sense of their own gender — is the primary factor in determining a person’s sex” and “every person has a gender identity.”
Alarmingly, the allegation that “every person has a gender identity” is now frequently written into most legal complaints involving transgender plaintiffs. In fact, a “Sample Expert Declaration from a Transgender Restroom Access Case” available for download at the American Bar Association website contains that exact statement. The document was “Reproduced with permission from Shannon Minter, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.” Like Adams, Minter, who was born female, identifies as a man.
The factual allegation that “every person has a gender identity” appears to conflict with the agender element of the vast transgender umbrella. For example, in 2017 an Oregon court ruled that Patrick “Patch” Abbatiello could legally change their sex to agender.
According to an Associated Press article describing Abbatiello’s court ruling: “People who are agender see themselves as neither a man nor a woman and have no gender identity.”
As is typical in court cases involving transgenderism, the use of sex stereotypes to prop up male or female gender identities that mimic the stereotypical traits of biologically sexed males or females was on full display. During proceedings, “Adams testified about his childhood and how he rejected stereotypically feminine toys and clothes even though he was born with female sex organs.” The complaint states “Drew cut his hair short” as part of his social transition.
Court documents explain social transitions this way: “Social transition entails a transgender person living in accordance with the person’s gender identity. For example, for a transgender boy, social transition can include, among other things, changing his first name to a name typically associated with boys, using male pronouns, changing his identity documents to indicate a male gender, wearing clothing and adopting grooming habits stereotypically associated with boys, using restrooms and other facilities for boys, and otherwise living as a boy in all aspects of life.”
In July, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled Adams should be allowed to use the boys’ bathroom. The school board has now filed notice they plan to appeal that ruling.
Court documents and news articles related to the case and this blog entry can be found at these locations:
Colette DuChanois (August 24, 2018). School Board signals plans to appeal transgender restroom ruling. News4jax.com (Archive)
Nick Jones (July 26, 2018). Transgender St. Johns County student wins restroom lawsuit. News4jax.com (Archive)
Andrew Pantazi (Posted Dec 11, 2017). Transgender teen takes the stand in civil trial over bathroom rights. Jacksonville.com (Archive)
Case: Adams v. The School Board of St. Johns County, Florida
On August 3, 2018 three women who all have children who identify as transgender filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Judge Joseph W. Kirby of Warren County, Ohio alleging Judge Kirby discriminated against their children by not granting their name change petitions. Continue reading “Whitaker v. Kirby (USA)”
In May 2018, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (“Commission”) voted to expand its interpretation of the term “sex” in the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The Commission announced it would begin accepting complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Michigan Legislature recently asked Attorney General Bill Schuette to clarify whether the Commission has the authority to interpret the ELCRA to prohibit such discrimination.
On July 20, 2018, Schuette issued a formal opinion in which he concludes the Commission’s interpretation of the ELCRA is invalid because it conflicts with the plain language of the statute. “ELCRA’s text prohibits discrimination based on sex but does not cover distinctions based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” See Opinion No. 7305.
Schuette bases his opinion on the fact that the term “sex” refers to “the biological differences between males and females, not . . . the concepts of sexual orientation or gender identity.” He cites several cases showing that “courts consistently understood, from the 1970s to the 2000s, that there is a difference between classifying someone based on sex and classifying based on sexual orientation.” He acknowledges that although recent federal decisions, see Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College and Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act have held that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, “these newer federal decisions interpreting Title VII do not follow Michigan’s principles of statutory interpretation.” Further, “Michigan courts interpreting ELCRA have not expanded the meaning of “sex” in the way that a few federal courts interpreting Title VII have.” He also cites the Supreme Court’s holding in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, in which the Court concluded that sex stereotyping was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII, but notes “the Michigan cases that have cited Price Waterhouse have not extended ELCRA to require treating discrimination based sexual orientation or gender identity as discrimination based on sex. As a result, Michigan law on the meaning of discrimination based on sex has not evolved in the way that federal law may be evolving.”
Finally, “[t]he Legislature may, if it chooses, add the new categories of sexual orientation and gender identity to the statute. But . . . legislation addressing this precise issue has been introduced every year for the past 15 years, and each year the Legislature has declined the invitation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to protected categories under ELCRA.”
“[I]t is my opinion that the Michigan Civil Rights Commission’s Interpretative Statement 2018-1, which concludes that the term “sex” as used in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation and gender identity, is invalid because it conflicts with the original intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Act, and as interpreted by Michigan’s courts.”
Bill Schuette is running for Governor in the 2018 election.
Schuette: Michigan law doesn’t protect LGBTQ people from discrimination — Detroit Free Press
On July 18, 2018, Casey Zabala wrote to Max Dashu, an accomplished scholar who documents women’s herstory worldwide, to inform her that she was no longer invited to present at the upcoming Modern Witches Confluence in San Francisco as the result of “serious push-back” from people asserting via Facebook comments that they feel “excluded by [Max’s] presence” at the event. Zabala claims “I am going to have to remove you from our workshop line-up” as though there is no other option.
This is yet another troubling example of trans activists pushing for the exclusion of women from events they were invited to because those trans activists decided they couldn’t handle being around women who don’t share their opinions. The thing is, no one was forcing anyone to go hear Max Dashu speak. Attendees could go to the event and just, not go to her talk if they don’t want to listen to her speak.
That Zabala and the other organizers of this event decided the appropriate thing to do was to exclude Max Dashu from speaking at the event entirely instead of inviting attendees who don’t wish to hear her speak to simply not go to her talk, is garbage. You should be ashamed of your actions.
On July 18, 2018, the GLCCB and Baltimore Pride published the following garbage statement regarding Baltimore Pride 2018 on their respective Facebook pages:
Continue reading “Baltimore Pride 2018 (USA) @GLCCB @GLCCBPride”
Rich Allison is a men’s rights activist who has brought at least 13 lawsuits against female-focused businesses, alleging discrimination against men in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act because he’s upset he’s not invited to ladies’ night and doesn’t qualify for privately offered diversity scholarships aimed at getting women involved in industries that are already dominated by men. He was inspired to get involved in the men’s rights movement after he saw a T-Mobile ad he didn’t like featuring Sarah Silverman during the Super Bowl.
In his youth, Mr. Allison attended a boys’ prep school in Connecticut before moving to California. One reasonably wonders whether he’s planning to file suit against his former school next. Further, was the value of being educated in an environment focused on supporting his development as a young man simply lost on him? How sad.
He spends his time filing these lawsuits to deal with his emotions regarding his former military service, and also to remind women that civil rights laws were written to guarantee “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services” for everyone, including men’s rights activists.
A Fight for Men’s Rights, in California Courts — New York Times
Vanna Belton is an owner of Flavor, a restaurant and bar that caters to lesbians in Baltimore. She apparently claims to have worked to get a woman fired for marching at Baltimore Pride while carrying a sign Belton does not like. Below is a message she allegedly sent to a member of the Bmore Queer Facebook group, a cesspool of garbage. We redacted information that could be used to harass a woman who exercised her right to free speech. Continue reading “Vanna Belton and @FlavorBaltimore ”
On December 27, 2017, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed in part a summary-judgment dismissal of a case alleging discrimination on the basis of transgender status, finding a genuine issue of material fact. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings regarding the alleged discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The case was brought by Paul Allen Bray, who identifies as a “transgender/transsexual male,” against Starbucks, alleging that an employee disclosed Bray’s transgender status to another employee, who subsequently “began to treat him differently.”
Court reinstates transgender man’s discrimination suit against Starbucks — Pink News
Bray v. Starbucks — unpublished opinion
Nevaeh Love is a man who identifies as a woman. In September 2017, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on his behalf alleging he had been “ejected from a place of public accommodation because [he] is transgender.” Specifically, Love alleged he was “singled out and asked to move from [his] seat at an adults-only fundraising event.” The event was advertised as open to “ladies only” and featured male exotic dancers who allegedly “expressed objections to performing their show, which involved some degree of disrobing and mingling with the patrons, if a person they considered to be male was in the audience.” Event organizers allegedly asked Love to sit further back in the audience.
The case was presented to Judge Edward P. Nickinson of the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, who apparently distinguished Love’s case from similar cases alleging discrimination in which sexual acts were not a factor. According to Judge Nickinson, “No person should be required to perform body-contact sexual or sexually suggestive acts with another except by consent. The court believes that a judgment in favor of Ms. Love, in this case, would violate that basic premise.”
Further, Judge Nickinson wrote:
“Here, the dancers clearly did not consider Ms. Love to be a ‘woman’ for purposes of their performance, and the court sees no reason why, for that limited purpose, Ms. Love should be able to force those dancers to think otherwise.”
(emphasis added). He also noted that “the Court does not take issue with any of the multitude of cases finding that statutory prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex extend to transgender persons” in concluding that Love should not prevail on the claims alleged in the complaint.
Judge rules against Pensacola woman in transgender discrimination suit — Pensacola News Journal