Transgender Rights Bill H1728: "Body Multilation Bill"

Trans Rights marchers (men) in Northampton, Mass., June 2008 (MassResistance photo)

The "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" (H1728, S1687) is once again pending in the Massachusetts legislature, now with an astonishing 104 sponsors (a majority in both houses!). The Judiciary Committee has announced a hearing on July 14, where it must be stopped. No, it's not just about men in dresses using women's restrooms. It's much more far-reaching and dangerous than that. See our lengthy study (originally published in 2008) for a detailed examination.

Gunner Scott, the woman leading the radical "Mass. Transgender Political Coalition," at the Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass. in June 2008. (MassResistance photo)

How is the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” Bill -- H1728/S1687 -- a threat to your rights?

This bill would criminalize any objection to bizarre behaviors covered by the undefined phrase “gender identity or expression.”

Gender identity confusion is considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. But if Bill H1728 passes, the disordered behaviors of “transgender” individuals would be protected as a “civil right”! And power will rest with disturbed individuals who self-identify as the opposite sex, or who act out some public “expression” he or she insists is part of his or her “identity”. This bill is about protecting public, not private, behaviors. It is part of the radical strategy to leave the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” undefined in the bill.

And it’s not only about allowing cross-dressing and sex changes. It would normalize and mandate support for cross-dressing, sex changes, and various other perversions and practices. For example, “gender expression” (and the likewise undefined “sexual orientation”) could be interpreted to protect voyeurism, sado-masochism, prostitution, incest, or even sex in public places. Already, hotels are scared by “sexual orientation” anti-discrimination laws, so won’t deny access to transgender (or sadomasochist) conventions. Things will only get worse if this bill is passed.

In the “public accommodations” portion of the bill, for example:
“Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of … gender identity or expression … or … treatment in any place of public accommodation … or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimina- tion or restriction shall be punished by a fine … or by imprisonment … or both.” [MGL, Ch. 272, Sec. 98, with phrase “gender identity or expression” added by Bill H1728.]

- In Mass. law, “public accommodations” could be interpreted to include any place other than private homes.

- Individuals and churches will lose their freedom of speech and religion to object to transgender behaviors or “gender expression,” or even publicly oppose the new law. No sermon could be delivered, no seminar held disagreeing with this new “civil right” (as it could be considered “incitement” to “distinction or discrimination.”) No effort to overturn it could be organized in any “public accommodation,” no referendum signatures could be collected on sidewalks to overturn the law.

- A crime committed against a self-identified transgender person will receive extra penalties as a “hate crime”.

- Business owners will lose the ability to choose employees suited to their particular environment or clientele, no matter what it means for their profitability. Charges of discrimination could be brought if a “transgender” person is fired for valid causes totally separate from “gender identity”.

- Schools will normalize this psychological disorder to our children, exposing them to unimaginable stresses. Restrooms and locker rooms will be open to the opposite sex. Sports teams, proms, and homecomings will see “transgender” youth demanding “equal” treatment. Children of all ages will be given sensitivity lessons when teachers, staff or even parents undergo “sex changes” (which has already occurred in Newton, Oxford, and Brookline). The youngest children will be forced to imagine the removal of body parts as a healthy and reasonable option. “Anti-bullying” lessons will add this new category of victims.

- Landlords and property owners will not be able to deny rental or sale to anyone protected by the loose phrase “gender identity or expression” – which could include groups of “swingers”, sadomasochists, or even prostitutes.

- Restrooms and locker rooms at any public accommodation will be forced to allow a person who claims to be the opposite sex to use whichever restroom or locker room he or she chooses. It is especially frightening for women to have (often very large) men dressed as women sharing their restroom space.

- “Gender expression” will open the door to sexual activity in public or public nudity. Women claiming to be men will expose their scarred chests (from breast removal) in public. Exhibitionists could claim “expression” when exposing themselves. GLAD – the legal group behind “gay marriage” in New England, as well as transgender rights – actually held a forum recently promoting public sex called “Sex on the Margins.”

Jennifer Levi (blue shirt), lead attorney with GLAD for transgender issues, pushes baby stroller at Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass., June 2008 (MassResistance photo).

- Sensitivity training at work will normalize cross-dressing and "transitioning" employees.

- Transgender medical care will be mandated coverage for insurers (including state health insurance) – costs which can run into hundreds of thousands – subsidized by you. This includes hormone treatments, cosmetic treatments, radical body-mutilating sex change surgeries, and psychological counseling.

Get ready to see lots more of this if H1728 passes: A young woman who has removed her breasts to become a "boi" or "transman". Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass., June 2008. (MassResistance photo)

- Hospitals, doctors and therapists will be forced to provide this medical care and offer pro-transgender counseling; no religious objections are provided for.

- The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) – a shadow court system without usual legal procedures – will come after all offenders with huge fines, with no appeal possible. (This is already happening in Canada on “sexual orientation” issues.)

- Charges of “bigotry” and “transphobia” will intimidate citizens who object.

CONTACT the Judiciary Committee with your testimony!

BDSM on the Rise; Does the State Have an Interest?

Two recent stories in the New York Post remind us once again how quickly sexual perversions can devolve into acutely dangerous situations…. And make us ask once again why Massachusetts already protects undefined "sexual orientation" as a civil right, and is considering similarly protecting undefined "gender identity or expression" in our laws.

The state truly does have an interest in prohibiting certain sexual activities. The connection between the worlds of unrestrained GLBT behaviors and BDSM is well established. Otherwise, why would we see PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays) co-sponsoring a transgender conference (including kinky sex workshops) with the New England Leather Alliance (BDSM advocates); or GLAD (the legal advocacy organization that brought us “gay marriage”) holding a forum advocating total sexual liberation called “Sex on the Margins”?

In the New York Post:

THEY BEAT IT OUT OF ME: SECRET S&M LIFE OVER, PROF VOWS (2-13-08)
His life was saved last Friday by a dominatrix at the Nutcracker Suite on East 33rd Street, who was assigned to check on him after her colleague left him with a dog collar around his neck and a leather mask over his face, suspended a few inches off the floor.
She realized his foot was turning blue because one of his high heels had slipped off....

GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT: WHY I S&M (2-17-08)
AFTER a long day at the office, a high-powered Upper West Side tech consultant likes nothing better than to light some candles, turn down the lights - and get whipped.
"It's all about giving up everything, a total power exchange where you don't have to worry about anything," said the 36-year-old married dad of two.
"It's a release of any obligations I've got."
Sometimes the twisted sex play can get out of hand - as a near-fatal accident at the Nutcracker Suite on East 33rd Street proved last week. A 67-year-old Canadian college professor, who had hidden his predilection for S&M from his wife and two adult children for decades, was almost strangled with a dog collar around his neck and a leather mask over his face.
Richard Benjamin, who spent three days in a coma following the incident, has since vowed to break his lifelong addiction....

New Orientation Absurdity

What will we be called if we oppose "marriage" between man and his machine? Robotphobes? AI-phobes? Intimacy with a machine does not seem such a ridiculous concept when anonymous sex between humans is accepted as a legitimate activity.

MAASTRICHT, Netherlands, Oct. 11 (UPI) -- The University of Maastricht in the Netherlands is awarding a doctorate to a researcher who wrote a paper on marriages between humans and robots.
David Levy, a British artificial intelligence researcher at the college, wrote in his thesis, "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners," that trends in robotics and shifting attitudes onmarriage are likely to result in sophisticated robots that will eventually be seen as suitable marriage partners.
Levy's conclusion was based on about 450 publications in the fields of psychology, sexology, sociology, robotics, materials science, artificial intelligence, gender studies and computer-human interaction.
The thesis examines human attitudes toward affection, love and sexuality and concluded that the findings are just as applicable to human interaction with robots of the future as they are to the relationships between humans of today.

Lawsuit Against Church in NJ: Coming Soon to Mass.

One of the many ways "the sky is falling": LifeSite News reports that a lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing a church for refusing to let them have their "civil union" ceremony on church property. It won't be long before we see similar lawsuits in Massachusetts against churches that refuse homosexual "marriage" ceremonies on their properties. Just as in New Jersey law, Massachusetts bans discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of "sexual orientattion." Freedom of religion? What's that?

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...

Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.

"Weight Discrimination" & Parallel Cases

In a Boston Globe op-ed today, "Jumping the gun on weight discrimination," the authors (both employment lawyers) worry about a bill now in the Mass. legislature which would outlaw discrimination on the basis of weight. Their concerns over a new protected class of people based on "weight" apply equally to a class defined by "sexual orientation", or "gender identity and expression"! They point out:

• Weight is not clearly defined in the bill.
• Since weight is not an immutable characteristic, it is not "worthy of protected status on par with an individual's race or sex."
• Enactment of the weighty bill "would divert scarce state resources from serious issues."
• "A basic tenet of American law has been that businesses have had the freedom to choose employees and those with whom they wish to deal."
• "The burden this proposed legislation would put on employers, landlords, and others in commerce, would be substantial. It is no answer to state that a defendant who can establish that discrimination did not occur will be exonerated by the court system. Defense costs in discrimination cases are astronomical, win or lose."
• People who truly suffer a weight disability -- if their obesity "has a physical cause" and "limits their life activities" -- are already protected by disability laws, and can seek accommodations.
• There is no proven discrimination against this (however loosely defined) class of people.

Maybe these attorneys would like to join us in our concerns over other protected groups, defined by undefined phrases -- "sexual orientation" (already enshrined in our laws), and "gender identity and expression" (pending as a bill). If they think the weight bill is crazy, they should check out the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill."

Slippery Slope Confirmed by Time Magazine

The slippery slope of legalized depravity is real and now being confirmed, even by Time Magazine. The effect of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas 2003 ruling is far-reaching, just as Senator Santorum and Justice Scalia warned at the time. Jeff Jacoby wrote about it in last Sunday's Globe. Now WorldNetDaily has posted an article.

So look again at our posting yesterday: the list of some of the sick behaviors which will soon be protected by laws barring discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression." Take the warning seriously. This is what's coming our way, unless Massachusetts Bill H1722 is stopped, and the phrase "sexual orientation" is removed from our statutes.

The liberal elite and mainstream media laugh at you and call you names to attempt to silence your warnings. Then, after their filthy plan is in place, a few stories may trickle out from the mainstream media confirming our warnings were right after all. But by then it may be too late to reverse course. Mission accomplished by the forces of depravity.

Time Magazine, "Should Incest Be Legal?" (4-5-07):
When the Supreme Court struck down Texas's law against sodomy in the summer of 2003, in the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, critics warned that its sweeping support of a powerful doctrine of privacy could lead to challenges of state laws that forbade such things as gay marriage and bigamy. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in a withering dissent he read aloud page by page from the bench. It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest....

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, "Lawful incest may be on its way" (4-2-07):
...Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Over time, expect more and more people to answer yes.

WorldNetDaily: "Court ruling does support incest, polygamy; Time admits critics of 'gay' rights decision were right" (4-8-07):
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Texas law "demeans" the lives of homosexuals. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.
At the time of the 2003 decision, Time, in its "A Yea for Gays," said, "Lawrence v. Texas turns an issue that states have historically decided for themselves into a basic constitutional tenet."
"The decision was not, strictly speaking, a 'liberal' one," the magazine said then, noting, "Thus the activists' notion that gay marriage is an inevitable outcome of the ruling may be little more than wishful thinking."
The magazine also at that time questioned whether there even was a "culture war" that would involve moral issues. "It is clear … that the court has taken sides in the culture war,' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote last week in his abrasive dissent from the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalize homosexuality. Excuse me, but what culture War?" the magazine wrote.
"Most Americans aren't extremists, and they are not at war. The lovely paradox of 21st century America is that we seem to be increasingly united by the celebration of our differences. That is what the Supreme Court acknowledged in its decisions on homosexuality and affirmative action last week," the magazine wrote then.

"Sexual Orientation" & "Gender Identity & Expression" Still Undefined

How are "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression" defined? Not at all -- by the propenents of bills declaring criminal any discrimination against them. So states all over the country, and now possibly the federal government, have passed or are passing dangerous laws that protect people who may argue their perverted behaviors are protected by the new non-discrimination laws.

Traditional Values Coalition printed the list of sexual "orientations" that could conceivably fall under new protected status. The list comes from the DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. There's ...

... a whole range of sexual orientations that may end up being “protected” by passage of ENDA or H.R. 1592. The list below is from the 2000 edition of the DSM. NOTE: Page numbers are from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582

Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
[Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex]
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573) Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)

Gender Identity Disorders
Homosexual and transgender activists claim that “gender identity” can be different from a person’s biological sex and is inborn. In other words, a man who thinks he’s a woman, should be free to change his sex; a woman who thinks she’s a man should be free to change her sex and be free of alleged “discrimination” in the workplace.

TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” explains how radical transgender activists are working to overthrow the idea that a person’s biological sex is who they are – not what they think they are. Men are not women; women are not men. To think otherwise is to display evidence of a mental disorder and gender confusion. These conditions are treatable. They should not be normalized as “gender variant” behaviors.

TVC’s report, “Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable” discusses the idea of sexual orientation being on a continuum that can change over time.

The DSM still lists transvestism and gender dysphoria (confusion over one’s status as male or female) as mental problems to be dealt with by a psychiatrist.