Opinion
‘Transgender’ inmates are continuing to sexually assault female prisoners
From LifeSiteNews
By Jonathon Van Maren
The Mail reported that the California prison system has 1,997 detainees who currently identify as transgender and non-binary, and 345 male prisoners have requested transfers to women’s prisons.
Sixty-six-year-old Dana Sue Gray does not cut a sympathetic figure. She is currently serving a life sentence in Central California’s Women’s Facility (CCWF) – a women’s prison – for murdering and then robbing three of her elderly neighbours in the 1990s and going on a shopping spree. Recently, however, she has reportedly been sexually assaulted in jail – by a trans-identifying man serving his sentence with the women.
According to a report by the Daily Mail, Gray reports that she began sharing a dormitory with the trans-identifying male convict early in 2023, and that initially relations were “real friendly.” That soon changed as he became first verbally abusive, and then sexually abusive. One night, the man launched an all-out assault. “He came into my bed area and pulled his pants down and shoved his d***k in my face,” Gray told the Independent Women’s Forum.
Gray described the experience as “terrifying and disgusting” and told the man to back off. The first assault, she says, was merely a “show of male dominance.” He reappeared the following night, and this time he “put that big man hand on my back, on my shoulder blade” while she was sleeping. She woke up panicking and told him: “Stay the F out of my area. Don’t ever come to my area. Don’t ever touch me.” She told a guard, and the man was moved to a different yard – but still in the women’s prison. She did not file a formal complaint alleging assault for fear that she would have been isolated.
Gray is not the only female inmate to be assaulted of late. California has sent trans-identifying men to female prisons since 2020, when Senate Bill 123 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. Men can be sent to female prisons merely by claiming to be a woman – so-called “self-identification” – and do not have to have any sex change procedures or hormone treatments prior to being transferred. According to both Gray and other prisoners, the arrival of males in female prisons has transformed them.
“It’s disgusting and I have to be polite and deal with it for my own safety, and so that I have a less stressful day, but I don’t like it,” she said. “I don’t want any of them here. I want them to go away. It degrades women so bad.” Many of the women, she added, are poorly educated and particularly vulnerable. The Mail reported that the California prison system has 1,997 detainees who currently identify as transgender and non-binary, and 345 male prisoners have requested transfers to women’s prisons. Thus far, “46 were approved, 64 were denied, and 87 inmates have changed their minds.”
The California Department of Corrections insists that all requests are carefully reviewed, and that transfers are only approved when it is “safe to do so.” This is obviously not the case. Stories of women being sexually assaulted by trans-identifying men behind bars have come out everywhere the practice has been implemented, including Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. Fifty-one-year-old Tremaine Carroll, a trans-identifying man, has been charged with raping two women after being moved to the Central California’s Women’s Facility. He is six foot two, and one of his victims was a slight female in her thirties. He raped her in the shower of their shared dormitory. She is still suffering enormous trauma as a result.
There are plenty of other recent examples, as well. A murderer in Spain serving a 30-year prison sentence for murdering his female neighbor is now identifying as female – and getting transferred to a women’s prison. Other criminals are getting in on the grift, too, hoping it might result in cushier sentences: a violent serial rapist in Scotland has just announced his in-prison transition and demanded “gender affirming” care; an American pedophile convicted of raping his 7-year-old stepdaughter is appealing his life sentence after announcing he is now transgender; last month, a U.K. pedophile was sentenced to a mere 16 months prison, and claims to identify as a 5-year-old girl.
The sexual assault of Dana Sue Gray is just one example of a phenomenon unfolding everywhere the transgender movement has implemented its agenda. She richly deserves the life sentence she received, and she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. But to be locked up with a violent man who wishes to rape her is something different. I believe the best way to describe it would be “cruel and unusual punishment.”
From the Fraser Institute
By Steven Globerman, Joel Emes and Austin Thompson
According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city
The dream of homeownership is alive, but not well. Nearly nine in ten young Canadians (aged 18-29) aspire to own a home—but share a similar worry about the current state of housing in Canada.
Of course, those worries are justified. According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city. It’s not just Vancouver and Toronto—housing affordability has eroded nationwide.
Aspiring homeowners face two distinct challenges—saving enough for a downpayment and keeping up with mortgage payments. Both have become harder in recent years.
For example, in 2014, across 36 of Canada’s largest cities, a 20 per cent downpayment for a typical home—detached house, townhouse, condo—cost the equivalent of 14.1 months (on average) of after-tax income for families earning the median income. By 2023, that figure had grown to 22.0 months—a 56 per cent increase. During the same period for those same families, a mortgage payment for a typical home increased (as a share of after-tax incomes) from 29.9 per cent to 56.6 per cent.
No major city has been spared. Between 2014 and 2023, the price of a typical home rose faster than the growth of median after-tax family income in 32 out of 36 of Canada’s largest cities. And in all 36 cities, the monthly mortgage payment on a typical home grew (again, as a share of median after-tax family income), reflecting rising house prices and higher mortgage rates.
While the housing affordability crisis is national in scope, the challenge differs between cities.
In 2023, a median-income-earning family in Fredericton, the most affordable large city for homeownership in Canada, had save the equivalent of 10.6 months of after-tax income ($56,240) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home—and the monthly mortgage payment ($1,445) required 27.2 per cent of that family’s after-tax income. Meanwhile, a median-income-earning family in Vancouver, Canada’s least affordable city, had to spend the equivalent of 43.7 months of after-tax income ($235,520) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home with a monthly mortgage ($6,052) that required 112.3 per cent of its after-tax income—a financial impossibility unless the family could rely on support from family or friends.
The financial barriers to homeownership are clearly greater in Vancouver. But, crucially, neither city is truly “affordable.” In Fredericton and Vancouver, as in every other major Canadian city, buying a typical home with the median income produces a debt burden beyond what’s advisable. Recent house price declines in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto have provided some relief, but homeownership remains far beyond the reach of many families—and a sharp slowdown in homebuilding threatens to limit further gains in affordability.
For families priced out of homeownership, renting doesn’t offer much relief, as rent affordability has also declined in nearly every city. In 2014, rental rates for the median-priced rental unit required 19.8 per cent of median after-tax family income, on average across major cities. By 2023, that figure had risen to 23.5 per cent. And in the least affordable cities for renters, Toronto and Vancouver, a median-priced rental required more than 30 per cent of median after-tax family income. That’s a heavy burden for Canada’s renters who typically earn less than homeowners. It’s also an added financial barrier to homeownership— many Canadian families rent for years before buying their first home, and higher rents make it harder to save for a downpayment.
In light of these realities, Canadians should ask—why have house prices and rental rates outpaced income growth?
Poor public policy has played a key role. Local regulations, lengthy municipal approval processes, and costly taxes and fees all combine to hinder housing development. And the federal government allowed a historic surge in immigration that greatly outpaced new home construction. It’s simple supply and demand—when more people chase a limited (and restricted) supply of homes, prices rise. Meanwhile, after-tax incomes aren’t keeping pace, as government policies that discourage investment and economic growth also discourage wage growth.
Canadians still want to own homes, but a decade of deteriorating affordability has made that a distant prospect for many families. Reversing the trend will require accelerated homebuilding, better-paced immigration and policies that grow wages while limiting tax bills for Canadians—changes governments routinely promise but rarely deliver.
Steven Globerman
Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Joel Emes
Senior Economist, Fraser Institute
Austin Thompson
Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD1 day ago
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business1 day agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
Energy1 day agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Focal Points2 days agoPharma Bombshell: President Trump Orders Complete Childhood Vaccine Schedule Review
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow
-
Business1 day agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?