Charges Filed Against Trans Elections Judge ‘Erika’ Bickford in Allentown, PA — Including Tampering with Ballots

Charges were filed against the election judge in Allentown’s 3rd ward on October 5th. Everett “Erika” Bickford was charged with two election code violations including prying into ballots.

The Morning Call reports the following:

Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin on Monday announced charges against an elections judge in Allentown’s 3rd Ward who was accused of tampering with ballots during the Democratic primary race for state representative between Enid Santiago and Peter Schweyer.

Everett “Erika” Bickford was charged with two election code violations: insertion and alteration of entries in documents, and prying into ballots, both misdemeanors.

Allentown, in Lehigh County in Pennsylvania is the focus of the song from Billy Joel in 1982, “Allentown“.  The song was about the unemployed steel workers in the area.  It looks like the city has changed over time.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Adds to Definition of Female: ‘Having a Gender Identity That Is the Opposite of Male’

The dictionary appeared to add to its primary definition of female, which is defined as, “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”

However, while the primary definition overtly acknowledges the biological reality of the female sex, which makes it distinct from the male sex, the U.S. dictionary effectively negated its own definition by adding additional explanations to seemingly submit to the radical transgender movement.

Merriam-Webster’s sub-definitions, which seemingly erase the reality of biological sex, include:

  • having a gender identity that is the opposite of male
  • made up of usually adult members of the female sex
  • designed for or typically used by girls or women
  • having a quality (such as small size or delicacy of sound) sometimes associated with the female sex

This would not be the first time Merriam-Webster has moved to satisfy the mounting demands of transgender activists. As Breitbart News reported in July, Merriam-Webster updated its definition of “trans woman” to “woman who was identified as male at birth,” once again taking another step in erasing the biological reality of women.

As reported at the time:

Notably, the new definition conflicts with the dictionary’s official description of “woman,” which is defined as “an adult female person.” Merriam-Webster defines “female” as “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs” — a function a trans woman is, biologically, incapable of.

 Similarly, “trans man” is currently defined by Merriam-Webster as “a man who was identified as female at birth,” and the same logical sequence prevails. A “man” is defined as “an adult male human,” and “male” is defined as “an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female” — another function biological females, or those who would identify as a “trans man” —  are not able to do biologically.

Some feminists have remained at odds with transgender activists, who they contend are gradually erasing women to bend to the “woke” mob.

Continue Reading at Breitbart News…

Cambridge Trandgender Study: Psychiatrists Pressured to Accept Transgender Narrative or Remain Silent

Psychiatry sits on this knife-edge: running the risk of being accused of transphobia or, alternatively, remaining silent throughout this uncontrolled experiment

Abstract

Summary

In the past decade there has been a rapid increase in gender diversity, particularly in children and young people, with referrals to specialist gender clinics rising. In this article, the evolving terminology around transgender health is considered and the role of psychiatry is explored now that this condition is no longer classified as a mental illness. The concept of conversion therapy with reference to alternative gender identities is examined critically and with reference to psychiatry’s historical relationship with conversion therapy for homosexuality. The authors consider the uncertainties that clinicians face when dealing with something that is no longer a disorder nor a mental condition and yet for which medical interventions are frequently sought and in which mental health comorbidities are common.

In 2018 the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) issued a position statement to promote good care when dealing with transgender and gender-diverse people that relates to ‘conversion therapy’.1 In this article we reappraise the phenomenology of gender identity, contrast ‘treatments’ for homosexuality with those for gender non-conformity, analyse the relationship between gender dysphoria and mental disorders with particular reference to the younger cohort of transgender patients, and ask how psychiatrists can address distress related to gender while upholding the central tenet of ‘first do no harm’.

Homosexuality and conversion therapy

Male homosexuality was outlawed in the UK in 1865 until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised sexual acts between men. During that time, homosexuality was shameful, stigmatised and conceptualised as a mental disorder. Psychiatry was instrumental in its treatment, which continued even after the legal change.2

Attempts to ‘cure’ same-sex desire included psychotherapy, hormone treatment and various behavioural interventions. These interventions are now considered ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy.3 One high-profile failure for such ‘treatments’ was Alan Turing. After being found guilty of gross indecency in 1951, he was prescribed oestrogen, which rendered him impotent and caused gynaecomastia. He died by suicide in 1954.4

Conversion therapies lost popularity as evidence emerged of their ineffectiveness,5 coupled with more tolerant social attitudes. Homosexuality was removed from the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-10 classification in 1992. In 2014, the RCPsych published a position statement explicitly rejecting conversion therapy and supporting a ban.6 Same-sex orientation is regarded as a normal, acceptable variation of human sexuality.

Enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, lesbians and gay men in the UK now enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals in terms of healthcare, marriage and raising of children, and equal employment. Although they enjoy equal status and increased visibility in most Western societies, there remain countries and cultures where same-sex practice is taboo or criminal, and where people still seek treatment.

Beyond sexual orientation

In recent years, increasing links have been forged between lesbian and gay communities and those representing other gender identities. Stonewall describes ‘any person whose gender expression does not conform to conventional ideas of male or female’ as falling under the umbrella term ‘trans’.7

Definitions have evolved beyond those included in the 1992 ICD-10 under ‘gender identity disorders’, with which psychiatrists might be familiar.8 Transsexualism was widely understood to mean ‘a desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, and an accompanied discomfort of one’s anatomic sex’.8 Underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, although there are similarities and overlaps with both body dysmorphia and body integrity identity disorder.9,10 Sufferers might embark on social and medical intervention to help them ‘pass’ as the opposite sex. Historically, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria would have been required for doctors to intervene in this group.11

Transgender, however, has become a much broader category (Fig. 1). New terminology reflects a conceptual shift from clinical disorder to personal identity.12 Crucially, gender dysphoria is no longer integral to the condition. The World Health Organization has renamed ‘gender identity disorder’ as ‘gender incongruence’ and reclassified it as a ‘condition related to sexual health’ rather than retaining it in the chapter pertaining to ‘mental and behavioural disorders’,13 a somewhat discrepant placement, reflecting a political rather than scientific decision-making process.

Read more…

Supreme Court Hijacks Congress’s Power to Legislate by Redefining “Sex” to “Sexual Orientation”

The Supreme Court hijacked Congress’s power to legislate and redefined “sex” to “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The highest court of the land decided by a 6-3 vote to essentially rewrite a federal civil right’s law. For years the left has been fighting to change this federal law, and on Monday, 6 unelected judges rewrote the law.

Associated Press reported:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, sided with the liberal justices.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Justice Alito fired a warning shot and said Monday’s ruling could destroy women’s sports, weaken religious freedom, weaken freedom of speech and personal privacy.

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’

There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.” Alito added.

Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin weighed in.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will be lauded and celebrated in the media as “historic.” There will be little or any criticism of the Court’s complete disregard for the actual law and its legislative activism in violation of separation of powers,” Levin said in a tweet.

Levin blasted Gorsuch. “These things used to matter. Not so much anymore. Roberts no longer pretends to be a judge; now Gorsuch has left his robe behind as well (and it’s not the first time).” he said.

Judicial Watch boss Tom Fitton fired a warning shot.

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/justice-alito-fires-warning-shot-supreme-court-hijacks-congresss-power-legislate-redefining-sex-sexual-orientation/

University Professor Loses Admin Job For Stating That “Men Cannot Get Pregnant”

Kathleen Lowrey is an associate professor of anthropology at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Alberta, in Canada. She is also serving as the chair of the undergraduate program – an administrative role which includes duties such as chairing a committee about courses, approving transfer credits, and running a special seminar for honors students in the department.

She’s also a feminist. However, according to some anonymous students and the higher-ups of her University, she is not the right kind of feminist. Because she believes that women are … women. Even worse, she believes that men cannot be women because they don’t have a vagina.

These extreme and radical views caused her to become “problematic” as she was pressured to leave her administrative role. When she refused to do so, she was fired.

Lowrey says she was told in meetings that complaints, made to the dean of students and the university’s Office of Safe Disclosure and Human Rights, were that her views on feminism were making students feel unsafe and there were concerns this was driving students away from choosing anthropology as a major. She doesn’t know exactly the nature of the complaints — or who made them — because they were made informally and anonymously, she said.

“My chair was hoping that for the good of the department I would resign from my position.”

She said she was also told she had been discouraging students from organizing Pride events, which she denies. It was this claim which led her to conclude the complaints centred around her views on gender.

Following a subsequent meeting with the dean of the faculty, she received a letter saying she couldn’t effectively continue in the role and her leaving would be in the best interests of the department. Lowrey said the letter didn’t expound upon the reasons for her dismissal, and she maintains she has never been given proper reasons for her dismissal in writing.
– National Post, University of Alberta prof loses admin role over views on gender that made students feel ‘unsafe’

Lowrey is not a conservative that is looking to “own the libs”. She actually ascribes her intellectual formation to Marxism and radical feminism. While this kind of background should receive an enthusiastic thumbs-up from the social justice crowd, it is not enough anymore.

That’s because Lowrey describes herself as a “gender-critical feminist” which considers biological sex of primordial importance in fighting for women’s rights. While, only a few years ago, this precept was the norm in feminist circles, it is now deemed bad and “transphobic”.

Until what seems like a few minutes ago, there was nothing controversial about this opinion. But now there is. The only “correct” opinion to hold is that gender expression trumps biology in any rights-based claims. And in academic circles, Lowrey’s views, which she is at no pains to hide on campus and off, are a form of apostasy that cries out for punishment.
– National Post, Barbara Kay: U of A professor holds the line on free expression

Lowrey boils her views on feminism down to a few key ideas: Men cannot get pregnant, lesbians don’t have penises, and biological sex is real. These views apparently made students feel “unsafe” and  “caused them harm”.

We are talking about a University (a place of the highest learning possible) being “harmed” by the pre-school teaching that “boys have weewees”.

Continue Reading at Vigilant Citizen…