This year, the 519, which used to be the lesbian and gay community centre here and is still a City of Toronto agency, hired a young academic with the most transgender name ever, Jack Hixson-Vulpe, to write a report nobody asked for. “Creating Authentic Spaces: A Gender-Identity and Gender-Expression Toolkit to Support the Implementation of Institutional and Social Change” ostensibly exists to document transgendered persons’ legal rights on the job. A worthwhile goal, but the sort of thing a simple Web page could and does handle.

The report is a tagged PDF that one may download directly (PDF). (I also have a local copy [PDF] should the original disappear.)

The report spends a great deal of time lying to its readers about the supposed legal right of male-to-female transgenders to use female washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms (and female-to-males to use equivalent male facilities). There is no such right. I should know, because I extensively searched the human-rights jurisprudence and found precisely no rulings in Ontario establishing such a right. (Text file of citations.) There are claims and opinions that the Ontario Human Rights Code confers such a right, but it has never been tested, hence does not exist.

The report includes many graphically busy posters or “info sheets” one may print out. They’re also found separately at the 519’s Web site (example) and on its outpost in the online home of transgender “activism” and harassment, Tumblère.

Naturally I had questions. Two weeks ago I sent along a detailed E‑mail to Ms Hixson-Vulpe and two of the 519 staff listed in connection with the report. I began with:

I have questions for attribution about the 519’s report that carries the unintentionally ironic title “Creating Authentic Spaces.” I will wait a reasonable time before publishing, and will accurately report any and all relevant comments you give me, but you need to understand that what I also intend to publish is my opinion that this report amounts to transgender propaganda. Worse, I will report that it misleads readers about the true state of jurisprudence about transgender use of washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms.

I certainly encourage you to file any and all complaints you can think of against an established journalist who intends to publish his opinions about a publicly-financed public document published by a public agency. In fact, I would dearly love to find myself in a context where transgender and transgender-apologist respondents are forced to answer questions under oath. Your move.

Oh, and don’t top-post.

No response. (I included the citations on transgender washroom etc. use.)

So here are the questions I asked, mildly edited and marked up. (I removed some of my suggested copy-edits, for example, but nothing substantive.)

Transgender population in Ontario

The Trans Pulse Project, an Ontario-wide community-based research initiative exploring the health and well-being of trans people, surveyed 433 trans people in 2010–2011.

And, having read that report, I know that you are not disclosing two facts: The definition of “trans” in that report included anyone who felt like the opposite sex irrespective of clothing, makeup, or other presentation and absent any medical treatment; and there are no more than 433 transgendered persons in the entire province according to that research.

Transsexualism and homosexuality

Gender identity and sexual orientation are fundamentally different.

Then can you care to explain why the umbrella designation “LGBT” exists?

Why should gays and lesbians care about transgenders given the latter’s ceaseless campaigning against the former?

We are straight. We are gay.

As homosexuality means attraction to the same sex and heterosexuality means attraction to the opposite sex, and as sex is immutable, explain how a transgendered person may definitionally be “straight” or “gay.” Explain further how a former CEO in a dress can claim to be, say, a “trans lesbian.” (Not a hypothetical example – I sat six feet from exactly such a person at the Pride Toronto AGM last year and watched as this candidate for its board described herself that way.)

Denial of biology and anatomy

We are mothers, fathers, and parents.

Transgendered persons can be parents, but MTFs are not mothers and FTMs are not fathers. In particular, an FTM who gestates and delivers a baby is a mother, not a father.

We assume that all women menstruate or that all men have penises.

I assume you are not talking about post-menopausal women. (MTFs are not women and do not experience menopause.) What you are trying to say is that some women have dicks, as the expression on Twitter has it. No women have penises.

You are, further, trying to suggest that some men have vaginas, clitorises, vulvae, uteruses, and Fallopian tubes. No men have those anatomies.

Women and men possess a vast array of body forms and features

A fair statement when taken out of context (do you mean congenital amputees?), but I know what you are saying here is that some women have penises and some men have vaginas. No women have penises and no men have vaginas.

Explain to me how biology is not actually real. Further, if some women indeed have dicks, why the necessity to surgically alter those genitalia? If trans women are women and female bodies do not exist, why do they need surgery?

An organization fires a woman after receiving medical claims for a prostate exam. As this medical procedure is not associated with “women’s health,” she is being fired because she transitioned at some point in her life.

No woman has a prostate gland and this “organization” is acting rationally. There aren’t two kinds of women – those with prostates and those without.

The firing of this transgendered person is clearly illegal and could and should be pursued in the courts or at a human-rights tribunal. I note that you do not mention this possibility, which I see as reinforcing the victim narrative so dear to transgender apologists.


People who are from a certain religion or culture are not necessarily more homophobic or transphobic than people from another religion or culture.

You’re saying Muslims are not more homophobic or transphobic than, say, members of the United Church of Canada?

Trans inclusion is happening everywhere and in varied contexts

Do you mean in Muslim Iran, where homosexuality is punishable by death under sharia law but transsexualism is A‑OK, meaning that gay men are coerced into undergoing transgender surgery?

“While you’re at it, dear reader, hire the 519”

When discussing harassment and general organizational policy (p. 34), you ask readers to hire the 519. Do you think it’s ethical to use this report as a means of drumming up business?

What if your client or prospective client knows the law and insists on maintaining sex-segregated rather than gender-segregated spaces? With that inside information, would you serve as an expert witness for a complainant at the Human Rights Tribunal?


There is a very pervasive myth that trans women and men aren’t “real” women or men compared to those who are cisgender.

Actually, it is a statement of biological fact that “trans women” (I thought they were called “transwomen” – has that been invalidated under Trans* Newspeak?) are transgendered and are not women. “Trans men” are not men, either. Both groups could clearly and accurately be labelled transgendered. (Or, to again correspond with Trans* Newspeak, trans or trans*.)

What you are describing as a “very pervasive myth” is a statement of biological fact. Again, explain exactly at what point human anatomy ceased to be real.

This notion leads to trans people experiencing varying degrees of violence, discrimination, and harassment.

No, actually, it does not. Your implied claim here is that a knowledge that transgendered persons are not the sex they transgendered into leads to “violence” is another way of saying that knowing the facts about human biology is killing people. I read this a lot on Twitter, but that doesn’t make it true.

As you well know, the perpetrators of “violence” against transgendered people are invariably males who call themselves heterosexual, i.e., violent straight guys with tranny fetishes. Unless of course you are using the word “violence” here in its York University/downtown-progressive sense to mean “any opinion I disagree with.”

Assault on freedoms of speech and of conscience

If you say something that is offensive and someone points it out, do not try to prove them wrong or explain yourself. Simply thank them for pointing it out and validate what they have said

In other words, self-styled transgendered persons, who might not even betray any outward appearance of same, have an unfettered right to complain about any statement as “offensive,” while everyone else on the planet has to sit there and eat it.

So, for example, if one states that he is in favour of the antidiscrimination provisions that already exist yet understands penis is male, then any transgendered person, or anyone pretending to be same for the purposes of baiting an argument, can deem that statement “offensive.” The speaker then has no option to “explain [him]self.”

On what basis in constitutional or common law does your report make these assertions? Precisely when did transgenders arrogate full and untrammelled rights to freedom of conscience and expression, which now nobody else has if any transgender anywhere deems a statement “offensive”?

Encourage trans people to give honest opinions about their experiences with your organization.

But “cis people” may not do that, you elsewhere tell us. When women in an organization feel threatened by a man in a dress invading their bathrooms, under your philosophy those women would be barred from “giv[ing] honest opinions about their experiences.” In fact, they have to get out of the way.


  • Why does the document’s glossary fail to define “autogynephile”? This group, composed of hypermasculine, high-achieving married males with a sexual fetish for women’s clothing and undergarments (generally starting with their mothers’ and invariably devolving to their wives’), is wildly overrepresented in the MTF contingent and is exactly the population that now runs LGBT activist groups. The term also describes Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner to a T.

  • Meanwhile, your definition of “cross-dresser” is at best dishonest: “a person who, for various reasons, wears gender[‑]atypical clothing.” Doesn’t that describe essentially every transgendered person? “[T]hey may or may not self-identify as a cross-dresser,” the definition continues. If they don’t self-identify, how is anyone allowed to use that term to describe them? (Since no “cis” people actually identify as such unless they are transgender apologists, why is anyone allowed to use that term, either?)

    “Cross-dresser” is a word that tends to refer to men with sometimes strong preferences for clothing often worn by women.

    I think you mean “refers to men with a sexual fetish for women’s clothing.” (I also see what you’re trying to do there with “clothing often worn by women” and that’s not gonna fly.)

And now the biggie:

Washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms

Any reasonable person who reads the entire document will conclude that what it really wants to talk about is transgenders invading single-sex spaces, especially washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms.

The report doesn’t quite lie about the law in Ontario, but I say that only because I have some confidence you didn’t actually research the law. It positively does mislead the reader about the law in Ontario.

First, what your report refuses to acknowledge is that washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms are segregated by sex, not gender. Sex means biological sex and is real and immutable. (You have a biological sex and you can’t change it.) Almost no one is intersexed, and even intersexed persons have a definable biological sex, as they will be the first to tell you. Hence what we are talking about is male and female, two categories that exist outside of transgender ideology and anyone’s feelings and beliefs, including political beliefs.

Next, there are exactly zero human-rights judgements in Ontario pertaining to transgender usage of washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms. I know because I extensively searched Canadian Human Rights Reporter (CHRR), which I infer you did not. The closest thing to a relevant Ontario human-rights case was the disingenuous and vexatious complaint brought by an MTF transgender, Lisa MacDonald, against the Downtown Health Club for Women, Fulton Fitness and John Fulton. (2009 HRTO 1647 is one citation.) This MTF transgender applied to join this women’s gym, i.e., a gym segregated by sex, and filed a human-rights complaint before she even got a response.

After dragging the respondents through the mud for years, this MTF transgender withdrew her complaint without explanation. (Curiously, that withdrawal came after an order to provide medical records.) HRTO accepted that withdrawal. It also rejected the plainly true argument, which I would have made (see above) and which the respondent did make, that the applicant had abused the Tribunal’s processes.

Hence that case does not even constitute precedent. It never produced a judgement. There are no other cases in Ontario that produced judgements on the topic of transgender use of washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms.

There are some citations from British Columbia (not many). But while any and all cases could be cited as precedent in making a legal case in Ontario, human-rights rulings in other provinces have no application here. It is false to state or imply that settled law holds that transgenders can use any washroom, bathroom, changing room, or locker room they want.

Looking at your document, I see nothing but repeated statement of opinion masquerading as legal fact.

  • “Lack of inclusive washrooms” is described as “hostility” (p. 6). That may be your opinion, but the implication here is such “lack” constitutes illegal harassment, which it does not.

  • Disagreement, even if based on fact (like the fact that transwomen are male), is explicitly barred:

    • “If someone has concerns about a trans or gender-nonconforming person using the washroom, kindly suggest that they use the single-stall washroom.” Again, this means anyone who understands human biology and feels threatened by transgenders in an intimate environment must accommodate the source of the threat. Also, what happens when single-stall washrooms do not exist? (That contradiction reasserts itself elsewhere; see below.)

    • Further, the poster on p. 76 clearly states that anyone who “has an issue with a person who identifies as trans using a particular washroom or change room [has a] responsibility to remove themselves from that situation.” So when unwanted MTF male-bodied persons invade ladies’ rooms and even display their ladystick hard-ons, it is women who must flee. I don’t think you’re aware that you are not only squelching the rights and opinions of what you call cisgendered persons but essentially admitting MTF transgenders are a threat.

  • “Do not direct people to one washroom or the other” will do nothing but confuse the entire population of Ontario save for 433 people. If men’s and women’s washrooms are in different locations, nobody wants a prolonged spiel about how to get to both. It’s never a toss-up as to which washroom one wishes to use.

  • Your statement about ”OHRC Policy” is, like all the statements about transgender use of washrooms in this document, mere opinion. Individual complaints are not heard by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Its opinions are mere opinions and I have already shown that they have never been tested.

    • When your report states that “[c]ourt and tribunal decisions have affirmed the rights of trans people to have their lived gender recognized and respected… and have not found a public[‑]decency concern with respect to a trans-inclusive facility policy,” you are lying by omission. There is no jurisprudence in Ontario about transgender use of sex-segregated facilities, and what you are glossing as “a trans-inclusive facility policy,” with the clear intent to mislead, has not been tested with respect to washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms.

    • The poster on p. 78 claims transgenders have “the right” – note: not a right but the right – “to access the washroom or change room of your lived identity.” As you know, that’s untrue.

  • On p. 40, you instruct readers to do the following (brackets in original): “Grant [washroom] and [change] room access according to an employee’s gender presentation… regardless of what stage that person is in terms of [their] overall transition process.”

    • This means that men who feel like women but, obviously, are not and never will be women must be granted unrestricted access to women-only facilities. Putting previous statements together with this one, that obviously includes cross-dressers and autogynephiles with a sexual fetish and “trans*” people who are transgendered solely in their own minds and don’t even bother dressing up as the opposite sex. It is an instruction to create an unsafe environment for women in an organization, keeping in mind that transwomen, trans women, trans* women, and MTFs are male.

    • Readers are further directed to “provid[e] safe access to washrooms and change rooms” while ignoring the legitimate safety concerns of women who have male-bodied persons in their midst (this means males in female environments) and vice-versa. Elsewhere we are told to take transgenders’ word as gospel. You would be well advised to believe women when they tell you it is MTFs who threaten women in washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms.

    • The report contradicts itself on p. 44 by claiming that a refusal to provide gender-neutral washrooms constitutes “oppression.” But you fall all over yourselves to dictate to readers that transgenders may use any washroom they want, especially the ladies’. You can’t really have this both ways.

  • When discussing competing human rights, you cannot bring yourselves to admit that the human right to use washrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms segregated by sex stands a very good chance indeed of trumping transgender persons’ feelings and self-beliefs, especially given the public-decency sections of the Code.

  • I find it interesting that you did not discuss the issue of FTMs, who are female and have vaginas, in gay-male sexual spaces like bathhouses. While it may reasonably be deemed off-topic for a report on workplaces, I further assume you did not dare discuss it.

The political context of the 519

Gullible or ignorant readers will be unaware of the political context of this report. The 519, formerly a lesbian and gay community centre that also served other groups, is now for all intents and purposes a queer/transgender/LGBT community centre that also serves other groups. Its entire management consists of LGBT and transgender apologists. Gay men and lesbians, I contend, are increasingly put off by and induced to avoid what used to be a safe haven.

The fact that the 519 has a shadowy grande dame in the form of Salah Bachir makes matters worse. The 519’s feverish push for an “LGBT” sports complex, despite the clear absence of need, is derived from the fact that “a private donor” (obviously Bachir) is fronting some of the money. On that basis, the City of Toronto is expected to pony up extra millions – and so, even more risibly, are other levels of government. Anyone who reads the 519 plans for this “LGBT” recreation centre realizes it is a means to build an entire structure that transgenders can use without restriction, very much including disrobing and showering in opposite-sex locker rooms. It is, further, a method of undermining and ultimately destroying single-sex teams, especially teams “dominated by gay men.”

There is no washroom at the 519 that the public can use with the assurance that no one of the opposite sex, or pretending to be same, will also be present. In particular, there is no women’s washroom that males cannot use. You present this arrangement as the model to be followed everywhere in the province.

Perhaps worst of all, a (highly unconvincing) transgender former employee of the 519, Morgan Page, coined the odious term “cotton ceiling” to refer to lesbians’ refusal to have sex with men who delude themselves they are lesbians. Lesbians are attracted to women and know variously that MTFs are not women and nobody with a penis is a lesbian. The cotton ceiling is an actual “very pervasive myth” and amounts to justification of male rape of lesbians.

So when a knowledgeable reader encounters a report about transgenders published by the 519 and carrying the title Creating Authentic Spaces, the political context is actually important. Why don’t you tell me what you think the political context is?

The foregoing posting appeared on Joe Clark’s personal Weblog on 2015.11.21 12:32. This presentation was designed for printing and omits components that make sense only onscreen. (If you are seeing this on a screen, then the page stylesheet was not loaded or not loaded properly.) The permanent link is:

(Values you enter are stored and may be published)



None. I quit.

Copyright © 2004–2024