Lily Cade is a “Gold Star Lesbian” porn performer who chooses not to shoot scenes with trans women.
Last night, Lily Cade was subjected to a barrage of tweets from trans activists and their allies (seemingly led by trans porn star, Chelsea Poe) demanding that she explain and justify her decision. Continue reading “Lily Cade (@lily_cade) and Chelsea Poe (@ChelseaPoe666) (Internet)”
The Connecticut Department of Insurance issued a Bulletin directing insurance companies to ensure that there is no discrimination against insured individuals with gender dysphoria and ensure that individuals are not denied access to “medically necessary care because of the individual’s gender identity or gender expression.”
Jessica Robin Durling is a male who “identifies as” a woman. He faced suspension from his Nova Scotia high school in April for using the women’s washroom. Before Durling could serve out the school’s punishment, the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board announced that his suspension would be dropped. The school board also said it will develop new guidelines for schools to address the needs of all students.
Durling also operates a Facebook page from which he accuses lesbians and gay men writing about observable facts as engaging in “hate speech.”
“Jessica” also operates a male Facebook account that connects to a male Facebook page, thus casting further doubt on the veracity of his “woman status.”
The applicant complained about the alleged unfairness of German court proceedings concerning his claims for reimbursement of sex reassignment measures against a private health insurance company. He further considered that the impugned court
decisions had infringed his right to respect for his private life.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. The German courts should have requested further clarification from a medical expert. With regard to the Court of Appeal’s reference to the causes of the
applicant’s condition, it could not be said that there was anything arbitrary or capricious in a decision to undergo sex reassignment surgery and the applicant had in fact already undergone such surgery by the time the Court of Appeal gave its judgment.
The proceedings, taken as a whole, had not satisfied the requirements of a fair hearing. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. Since gender identity was one of the most intimate aspects of a person’s private life, it appeared disproportionate to require the applicant to prove the medical necessity of the treatment. No fair balance had been struck between the interests of the insurance company on the one hand and the interests of the individual on the other.
The case concerned the refusal by Max Schlumpf’s health insurers to pay the costs of his sex-change operation on the ground that he had not complied with a two-year period before gender reassignment surgery, as required by the case-law as a condition for payment of the costs of such operations.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The waiting period had been applied mechanically without having regard to the age (67) of the applicant, whose decision to undergo an
operation was likely to be affected by that delay, thus impairing his “freedom to determine his gender identity.”
The case concerned a male-to-female transsexual who, prior to his sex reassignment, had had a son with his wife in 1998. They separated in 2002 and the applicant complained of the restrictions that had been imposed by the court on the contact arrangements with his son on the ground that his emotional instability after his change of sex entailed a risk of disturbing the child, then aged six.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) to the Convention. It found that the restriction on contact had not
resulted from discrimination on the ground of the applicant’s transsexualism. The decisive ground for the restriction imposed by the Spanish courts, having regard to the applicant’s temporary emotional instability, had been the child’s well-being. They had
therefore made a gradual arrangement that would allow the child to become progressively accustomed to his father’s sex reassignment.
The case concerns the refusal of the domestic courts to authorise the applicant – a female – to undergo sex reassignment surgery on the ground that she did not meet the statutory condition that required her to have been diagnosed as permanently infertile. Under Article 40 of the Civil Code (Law n o 4721) of Turkey, anyone wishing to change sex may, on personal request, apply to the court an application for authorization to do so. For such authorization is granted, the applicant must be at least 18, unmarried, with a “transsexual predisposition” with medical evidence that the sex change is necessary for the mental health of the applicant, and permanently incapable of bearing children. The Court communicated the application and put questions to the Turkish Government under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.
A transgender woman filed a lawsuit after he was allegedly sexually assaulted by a deputy while in jail.
Former Deputy Duane Clark, 40, was fired and arrested for sexual assault of the inmate and violation of oath by a public officer following the 2012 incident. The now former inmate said the sexual assaults happened repeatedly for almost a month while he was in the jail during January 2012.
In the federal lawsuit: “Defendant Gwinnett County, which knew or should have known that transgender inmates are at greater risk of sexual assault by detention officers, was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm to Plaintiff by not having policies and procedures in place to address that risk other than State Law penal statues.” For example, the lawsuit claims no one was monitoring the surveillance cameras for the pod and there was not an second corrections officer assigned to the area.
The Dutch Senate passed a new law to allow people to change the “gender” marker in their official identity papers to their preferred gender. The law does away with previous requirements for taking hormones and surgery, including irreversible sterilization, though it is a step short of complete personal autonomy for the decision. Thus, the Netherlands will allow any person to “change their gender” (sic) on identity documents with a simple declaration, thus obliterating the category of “sex” as a meaningful legal category.
According to Human Rights Watch, which has “researched” – and fundraised off of – this issue, in 1985, the Netherlands was among the first European nations to adopt legislation granting “transgender people—individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned them at birth—legal recognition of their gender identity, albeit under onerous legal conditions.” The law allowed trans people to “change their gender” on official documents only on condition that they have altered their bodies through hormones and surgery, and that they are permanently and irreversibly infertile. This is what is known as “a legal sex change.”
“These requirements routinely leave trans people with identity documents that do not match their deeply felt gender identity, resulting in frequent public humiliation, vulnerability to discrimination, and great difficulty finding or holding a job,” according to Human Rights Watch.
According to Human Rights Watch, the “conditions imposed by article 1:28 of the Civil Code violate transgender people’s rights to personal autonomy and physical integrity and deny transgender people the ability to define their own gender identity,” deemed by the European Court of Human Rights to be “one of the most basic essentials of self-determination.”
No word from Human Rights Watch about the rights of Women to have space away from the male-bodied who identify as “Women.”