#Fort York Heritage Conservation District

[rabbitcruiser]

CN Tower, Toronto (No. 1)

The CN Tower (French: Tour CN) is a 553.3 m-high (1,815.3 ft) concrete communications and observation tower located in Downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Built on the former Railway Lands, it was completed in 1976. Its name "CN" originally referred to Canadian National, the railway company that built the tower. Following the railway's decision to divest non-core freight railway assets prior to the company's privatization in 1995, it transferred the tower to the Canada Lands Company, a federal Crown corporation responsible for real estate development.

The CN Tower held the record for the world's tallest free-standing structure for 32 years until 2007 when it was surpassed by the Burj Khalifa and was the world's tallest tower until 2009 when it was surpassed by the Canton Tower. It is now the ninth tallest free-standing structure in the world and remains the tallest free-standing structure on land in the Western Hemisphere. In 1995, the CN Tower was declared one of the modern Seven Wonders of the World by the American Society of Civil Engineers. It also belongs to the World Federation of Great Towers. 

It is a signature icon of Toronto's skyline  and attracts more than two million international visitors annually.

Source: Wikipedia

[phroyd]

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from a 2020 census survey and a national survey of elderly citizens.

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”

Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.

One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

But it would also raise new questions.

The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, such as sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

Phroyd

[the-mira-life-project-mtf]

‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

     The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a government wide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

     A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

     Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

     The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

     “Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

     The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

     Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from a 2020 census survey and a national survey of elderly citizens.

     For the last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

     Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the department, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

     But officials at the department confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

     Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

     In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

     “Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.” After this article was published online, transgender people took to social media to post photographs of themselves with the hashtag #WontBeErased.

     The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

     The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

     Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

     After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

     The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

     But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

     Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

     A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

     But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

     Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

     In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

     “Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

     One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

     Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive government wide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

     But it would also raise new questions.

     The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, like sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

     The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

     Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 21, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump May Limit How Government Defines One’s Sex. New York Times.

[ariarichardson]

4 Beautiful Destinations in Ireland you can get to by Train

Experience Interrailing

If you’re looking for something new to experience, interrailing is the most relaxing way to travel and to explore new cities across Ireland.

It’s the new way to experience culture and explore breathtaking views. Explore the wonderful beauty of Ireland with no road maps. Instead sit back and relax with a cup of tea during your train journey.

Discovering Ireland has listed below four beautiful towns in Ireland that are easily accessible by Irish rail.

Cobh, Co.Cork

Co. Galway

Kilkenny Town

Tralee, Co. Kerry

Cobh, Co.Cork

Cobh (“Cove”) previously known as Queenstown. Cobh is a pleasant waterside town, which is rich in history. It was the last port of call for The Titanic before it met its tragic fate. Cobh is situated on Great Island, just one of the three large islands in Cork harbor (Little Island and Fota Island), which all three are now connected by roads and bridges.

  Things to do in Cobh

Spike Island

View from Spike Island to Cobh in Cork in the south of Ireland.

For the last 1300 years, a 6th century Monastery has been situated on Spike Island. The Monastery is a 24-acre Fortress, the largest convict depot in the world in Victorian times and centuries of island homes.

Today the island is dominated by the 200-year-old Fort Mitchell, the star shaped Fortress which became a prison holding over 2300 prisoners.

Embrace the beauty that Cobh has to offer by taking a scenic ferry ride from Kennedy Pier, Cobh. Guided tours are encouraged to learn about the history of the island and fortress. After your adventure, relax in the cafe or set up camp and have yourself a picnic in our picnic areas.

In 2017, Spike Island won winner of Europe’s leading tourist attraction at the world travel awards.

The Titanic Experience

Old White Star Line Offices and pier in Cobh, Co. Cork, Ireland. The original pier where passengers board the tenders PS Ireland and PS America to join the RMS Titanic, which had moored off Roche’s Point before departing on it’s last maiden voyage to North America.

The Titanic Experience Cobh is a well-known tourist attraction. It’s located in the original White Star Line Ticket Office in the center of Cobh town, which was the departure point for the final 123 passengers who boarded the Titanic.

Ever wonder what it would be like to be a passenger on the Titanic? Now is your chance to experience the life of a passenger on the Titanic whether first-class or third class. It’s a great way to learn about history long ago for children and adults.

Enjoy the experience by pretending to be one of the 123 passengers. When you check in, you will receive a boarding card. The boarding card will have details of one of the 123 passengers. You will experience the life of a third class or first class passenger long ago.

After the tour you are free to explore the exhibition area. Interact with a collection of audio-visual presentations and story boards exploring the events that led to the tragic sinking.

The final farewell of the experience is located in the story room. Here you will find out if you survived the Titanic or not from looking for your name on the wall.

Fota Wildlife Park 

Cheetah glaring whilst lying down

Fota Wildlife Park has an annual attendance of 440,000 visitors. It is currently the second largest visitor attraction in Ireland outside of Leinster.

Fota Wildlife Park’s aim is to inspire people to understand and conserve the biodiversity of our natural world. Explore the sanctuary at your own pace. Take in the beauty of the animals.

Fota Wildlife Park is a very unique place, and you can see it in a whole new light when you take one of their exciting tour options.

Learn about different species and how they adapt to the environment. Great photography opportunities.

Everyone, including adults love Fota Wildlife Park. It’s a fantastic and romantic place to have a date or as a family bonding time. No matter what, you will have a great time at Fota Wildlife Park.

Cobh railway is located in Cobh town and is situated beside Heritage Centre.

Co. Galway

County Galway is the most charming city that you will encounter in Ireland. It is the third largest city in Ireland, located on the West Coast. Galway was crowned the European Capital of Culture in 2020.

Things to do in Galway City

Beaches

Photo of a beautiful scenic sea and sky landscape. View of ocean scenery. Beach and promenade, West coast of Ireland, Galway, Salthill, Atlantic ocean. Sea shore line

Galway is home to many beautiful beaches, all with breathtaking views. Walk along the beach during sunset and sit watching the sun go down. Who wouldn’t want to watch this most angelic view? It’s a great way to relax and destress.

Bring the kiddies to the beach, they’ll love it! It’s a great way to spend some quality family time together. A trip to the beach is a refreshing activity as it is cooling during the hot summer weather.

Galway Races

“Galway , Ireland – July: Unidentified Man riding with Horse.”

For the 150th year, The Galway races returns from Monday 29th July to Sunday the 4th August 2019. The Galway races is an exceptional week of fun filled excitement.

It’s an excuse to get dolled up and be in a chance to win best dressed on the day. Women feel honored that their fashion sense is recognized by many others.

Shopping

Shop Street in downtown Galway, County Galway, Ireland.

Galway provides an excellent Shopping experience like no other. Most of the shops are located in small districts within the city center, including The Latin Quarter, The Westend and at stalls in Galway’s outdoor market.

There is a shop for everyone, and shopping is made easy in Galway as you can enjoy entertainment from street performers if you are a person who hates shopping and is made go to every shop. Enjoy the atmosphere around the city centre with free entertainment.

Experience Irish Culture

Galway, Ireland – August 27, 2012: Street with pubs in Galway, Ireland. People are walking around.

Galway is rich with Irish Culture. Galway and Mayo are very fortunate to have Gaeltachts and Irish speaking areas in both Galway and Mayo.

The Irish language is continued on and remains deep in Galway, unlike most counties who no longer speak the traditional language in everyday speech unless they are in school. Which is such a shame as the traditional Irish language is beautiful to hear.

The pubs in Galway are always full of traditional Irish live music. You will always have a great time in any pub regardless which one that you are in. The Atmosphere in Galway is fantastic, and the nightlife is perfect for everyone including hen and stag dos.

You will always find talent around Galway streets. Enjoy performances (buskers) from the public along Shop St,High St, Quay St and around the Spanish Arch

Galway train station is located in the city center, just off Eyre Square.

Kilkenny Town

Kilkenny is rich in heritage and is visible through its narrow streets, historical buildings and landmarks. Ireland’s Medieval Mile is situated in the heart of Kilkenny. It runs from Kilkenny’s majestic Castle to St. Canice’s Cathedral, the Round Tower and covers everything in between.

Kilkenny, Ireland – August 23, 2014: Kilkenny Castle. Historic landmark in the town of Kilkenny in Ireland.

Visit the magnificent Kilkenny Castle with a beautiful scenic walking route. Surrounded by a rose garden, ornamental lake and extensive woodland paths. It is the ideal location for a romantic stroll. Visitors can explore the castle at their leisure.

Kilkenny’s Medieval Mile Museum provides an international standard attraction for visitors to the museum. Helps paint Kilkenny’s history as Ireland’s premier medieval city in a clearer picture. It’s an excellent way to devour yourself in rich history and culture of Kilkenny.

Music is a huge part of Irish history. Kilkenny’s pubs will have something to offer everyone. Grab your mates and start a pub crawl. No matter which pub you are in, there is always something that is going on.

Live traditional musicians in almost most of the pubs. Get inside and enjoy the craic with friends and even join in on an Irish jig. Kilkenny is the perfect location for Hen and Stag parties.

Kilkenny Train station is located 0.25 miles from the town center.

  Tralee, Co. Kerry

Tralee has something to offer everyone. It’s a beautiful holiday destination for tourists or Irish residents. It’s full of culture and heritage. With many pubs along the street, there’s always a great atmosphere and traditional Irish music being played.

The Aqua dome

Looking for an activity for both the children and you? Bring the kids to Aqua Dome. Parents can relax at the adults-only health suite, which has saunas, a steam room and a pool. Put your feet up while your children splash around in the Aqua Dome. It’s great activity which both the parents and children can enjoy.

The Aqua Dome is one of Ireland’s Largest Indoor Water world & Premier Tourist Attractions located on the Wild Atlantic Way. The Aqua Dome offers tropical temperatures all year round. The Aqua Dome is suitable for swimmers & non-swimmers.

Rose of Tralee festival

The Rose of Tralee is an international event.

It’s not a beauty pageant but more so a “lovely lady” pageant. It’s all about who the women are and what character each and everyone has, in order to pick a fantastic ambassador for Ireland and Tralee.

New York, NY, USA – March 17, 2016: The The beautiful Rose of Tralee women march in the St Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City.

During the lead up to the selection weekend, you will experience a week-long festival in Tralee, where you get a chance to meet all the roses and escorts and join in on all the activities. The Rose of Tralee is filmed live on the Television for two nights. It’s certainly not a week to miss in Tralee.

Slieve Mish Mountains

Black faced sheep on high country farming Slieve Mish Mountains, Ireland

The estimate terrain elevation above sea level is 380 meters. It is a beautiful compact little range that safeguards the southern margins of Tralee Bay and the northern boundary of Castlemaine Harbor.

This hike is perfect for all you go getters out there. It’s an incredible accomplishment when you finish and the views along the way are spectacular. Very important to bring plenty of water and food with you.

The train station in Tralee is located at John Joe Sheehy Rd, Cloonalour, Tralee, Co. Kerry. It is a five-minute walk from the Town Centre.

You won’t be disappointed travelling across Ireland by train. It’s the easiest way to get around and all you must do is sit back relax with a cup of coffee and watch the world go by.

If you have any queries about rail tours please feel free to email us at;

E: info@discoveringireland.com

from Ireland Vacations with DiscoveringIreland.com http://bit.ly/2YOTEGy

[blogparadiseisland]

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence http://www.nature-business.com/nature-trump-administration-eyes-defining-transgender-out-of-existence/

Nature

Image

Protesting the Trump administration’s policies toward gender in New York last year.CreditCreditYana Paskova for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of sex in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing sex largely as an individual’s choice — and prompting fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from the 2020 census and a national survey of elderly citizens.

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Image

Roger Severino, now at the Department of Health and Human Services, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity.CreditAaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”

Image

A transgender flag outside a bar in Brooklyn. The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.CreditAnnie Tritt for The New York Times

Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.

One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

But it would also raise new questions.

The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, such as sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html |

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence, in 2018-10-21 15:03:29

[magicwebsitesnet]

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence http://www.nature-business.com/nature-trump-administration-eyes-defining-transgender-out-of-existence/

Nature

Image

Protesting the Trump administration’s policies toward gender in New York last year.CreditCreditYana Paskova for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of sex in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing sex largely as an individual’s choice — and prompting fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from the 2020 census and a national survey of elderly citizens.

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Image

Roger Severino, now at the Department of Health and Human Services, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity.CreditAaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”

Image

A transgender flag outside a bar in Brooklyn. The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.CreditAnnie Tritt for The New York Times

Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.

One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

But it would also raise new questions.

The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, such as sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html |

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence, in 2018-10-21 15:03:29

[computacionalblog]

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence http://www.nature-business.com/nature-trump-administration-eyes-defining-transgender-out-of-existence/

Nature

Image

Protesting the Trump administration’s policies toward gender in New York last year.CreditCreditYana Paskova for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of sex in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing sex largely as an individual’s choice — and prompting fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from the 2020 census and a national survey of elderly citizens.

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Image

Roger Severino, now at the Department of Health and Human Services, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity.CreditAaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”

Image

A transgender flag outside a bar in Brooklyn. The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.CreditAnnie Tritt for The New York Times

Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.

One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

But it would also raise new questions.

The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, such as sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html |

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence, in 2018-10-21 15:03:29

[internetbetterforall]

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence http://www.nature-business.com/nature-trump-administration-eyes-defining-transgender-out-of-existence/

Nature

Image

Protesting the Trump administration’s policies toward gender in New York last year.CreditCreditYana Paskova for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of sex in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing sex largely as an individual’s choice — and prompting fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from the 2020 census and a national survey of elderly citizens.

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Image

Roger Severino, now at the Department of Health and Human Services, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity.CreditAaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”

Image

A transgender flag outside a bar in Brooklyn. The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.CreditAnnie Tritt for The New York Times

Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.

One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

But it would also raise new questions.

The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, such as sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html |

Nature Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence, in 2018-10-21 15:03:29

[hub-pub-bub]

The MIT Media Lab is located in a classically modern building. At night, its glossy white walls, floors, and ceilings shine through its glass perimeter to cast a futuristic glow onto the surrounding streets.

But the part of the building that best reflects the Media Lab’s forward-thinking spirit is actually a picture of the past. Dominating the hallway of the Amherst Street entrance is a towering, three-part portrait showing the eccentric Brookline living room of legendary MIT staffer Marvin Minsky.

Marvin Minsky's living room

Many people consider Minsky, who passed away last year, the father of artificial intelligence. His influence spans from his 1951 invention of the first neural net machine at Harvard to the pioneering work currently being done at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (which Minsky co-founded).

For most of Minsky’s career, however, progress in AI was limited to research papers and experimental, one-off prototypes. Today, the hype surrounding AI’s commercial applications has many people insisting it will be the driver of the next big tech wave, creating systems that aid (or replace) workers in every sector of the economy.

“I think machine intelligence represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for entrepreneurs,” said Vivjan Myrto, Co-Founder of AI-focused VC firm Hyperplane Venture Capital. “It also represents a massive opportunity to invest in technologies that are solving really large-scale problems.”

Boston has long been known for its hard tech contributions, but that hasn’t always translated into the creation of market-leading tech giants. Even more discouragingly, in several cases, some of the city’s most promising startups have moved to California as they’ve scaled.

Rob May, Founder of AI-driven virtual assistant company Talla, believes Boston tech companies have had a more conservative approach to the market in the past, a mindset that has sometimes taken its toll. But May thinks AI’s emergence will play out differently than previous tech waves, and he’s not alone.

In fact, people within the Boston tech community are almost uniformly optimistic that Boston is as well-positioned as anywhere to produce the next great companies built around AI solutions.

A History of Intelligence

The colorful portrait of Minsky’s room serves as a vibrant reminder that the city of Boston is the birthplace of much of humanity’s knowledge of AI.

As progress in the field has quickened, many local and state governments have pledged support for AI research and implementation. But in Boston, AI isn’t the latest fad, it’s a long-standing tech frontier we’ve been involved with since its inception.

“We’ve been doing this since way before it was the next big thing in software, since way before it was cool,” said Catherine Havasi, a longtime member of MIT’s Media Lab who founded text analytics spinoff Luminoso in 2010.

Boston’s experience with AI gives local companies several advantages when developing AI solutions that can actually add value in a business environment, which is more difficult than many people think.

Machine learning techniques, for example, use data to train systems to complete a range of tasks including object recognition and detecting credit card fraud. Although these systems don’t need to be painstakingly programmed for each task, they’re often only as effective as the datasets going into them, thus requiring companies to maintain collections of clean, well-labeled data to optimize a system’s performance.

Deep learning, a subset of machine learning that has exploded in popularity over the last five years, typically requires even more expertise to work effectively. Deep learning systems rely on layers of connected processing units to extract insights from data. Getting a successful output from a deep learning system requires users to adjust the weights between units in a technique that’s often more of an art than a science.

That means trying to use deep learning systems in a new space can be next to impossible if you don’t have a mathematical understanding of how they work.

“Whenever there are algorithms or datasets being used, the people who created those things are going to know how to use them the best because they understand things at a deeper level,” Havasi said. “If you run into a problem, you have to go under the hood and make changes, and the people who truly understand these things are always going to have an advantage.”

That advantage is a big reason why Myrto describes Hyperplane as a very “founder-centric” VC firm.

“In AI, you have to be very team-focused and vision-focused,” Myrto says. “The technical teams are absolutely crucial. You need to have a team that understands the technology in a way that others don’t. At the end of the day, that’s what we’re investing in, really outstanding engineers.”

If building successful AI companies requires intellectual capital, then Boston should feel pretty good about its prospects. In their 2015 pitch to bring General Electric to the area, Boston officials described the city as “the world’s most sustainable source of exceptional talent.’’

There are more than 50 colleges and universities in the greater Boston area. According to the state’s 2017 Budget and Policy Center report, Massachusetts has the highest percentage of workers holding bachelor’s degrees of any state in the country.

When it comes to AI, MIT is unquestionably one of the leading research entities in the world, but other schools in the area such as Harvard, Northeastern, Boston University, Tufts and UMass Amherst also have AI-related programs and research labs that have produced a host of intriguing spinoffs.

“Boston really has an incredible heritage of engineers that are focused on these heavy-lifting technologies,” Myrto said. “Boston has always been on the forefront of solving the biggest problems in the world with frontier technologies.”

An Improving Tech Ecosystem

All that brainpower provides only fleeting benefits to Boston, however, if entrepreneurs feel the need to relocate before applying their research and ideas to the private sector. Strong tech ecosystems also require ample support structures for entrepreneurs, and it’s recent improvements in that area in particular that have people bullish on Boston’s future.

Habib Haddad, the president and managing director of MIT’s new investment group the E14 Fund, is one of those people. Haddad said as recently as five or ten years ago, there were several factors that made places like New York and San Francisco more appealing to entrepreneurs than Boston, and they had nothing to do with the demoralizing effects of the snow.

“Great companies like Facebook and Dropbox moved quickly to the other coast because some key elements just weren’t here,” said Haddad. “Now city officials, the startup community, investors, and universities are all saying, ‘We’re not going to miss out on the AI revolution the way we missed out on the consumer revolution.’”

There’s an old-fashioned mindset that academic research should focus on long-term, fundamental breakthroughs at the expense of more commercially applicable advances. In the past, that kind of thinking was certainly more pervasive in Cambridge than in Palo Alto.

Now the proliferation of university-based incubators in Boston is sending a clear message that schools support entrepreneurship. The emergence of university-linked venture capital funds such as UMass Amherst’s Maroon Venture Partners Fund, Boston College’s SSP Venture Partners, and MIT’s E14 Fund further blur the lines between the education and business sectors.

The number of accelerators in the city has also grown over the last ten years, led by groups like Techstars, which has helped local companies raise more than $750 million since it came to Boston, and MassChallenge, which has supported more than 1,200 companies since it launched with money from local officials in 2010.

And many research labs in the area now have corporate partnerships that allow researchers to consider real-world problems instead of the high-level work encouraged by more traditional funding sources like the National Science Foundation. Those partnerships offer a huge advantage in overcoming two of the biggest hurdles of starting an AI company: Determining product-market fit and securing access to large amounts of data.

“With AI, you see people building really cool technologies without identifying a problem, so they’re always trying to find a beachhead,” Myrto said. “But the research labs are interacting way more with investors, and that shift has happened in the last three to five years. They’re interested in building companies from this research. So we’ve seen a shift in mindset, and it’s accelerating big time now.”

Tech Giants Take Notice

One way of looking at this shift is that Boston universities are finally opening their doors to the private sector. The other way to interpret it is that the private sector finally beat their doors down.

GE’s decision to move its world headquarters to the Seaport District is just the latest example of an industrial giant establishing a connection to the city. All around Boston, companies are competing to gain access to the city’s cutting-edge research and talent pool, often elbowing out space for themselves in the process.

This summer Amazon announced a new office along Fort Port Channel, literally next to the space GE has claimed for its flashy new headquarters. Google and IBM have also expanded their local offices in the last three years. Other tech behemoths such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter have made Kendall Square one of the most densely packed tech hubs in the country.

Many of these companies’ local branches are focused on AI. Amazon’s Cambridge office has been deeply involved with the company’s intelligent voice assistant Alexa. IBM has a local lab which seems to focus exclusively on AI, and last month the company announced a 10-year, $240 million investment in the new MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.

“When you talk about industrial technologies and industrial AI, the race is ours to lose for sure,” Myrto said. “Soon that’ll spread to every industry. GE, Siemens already know this, that’s why they’ve been here. Boston’s background in industrial knowledge is really deep.”

These big companies are also competing for attention, forming partnerships with local tech groups, hosting events and creating their own events in an effort to position themselves as thought leaders. Such events give Boston’s growing tech community a way to keep its small-town feel and provide newcomers with a way to connect with peers over free drinks.

“We’re seeing enormous amounts of growth if you look at the number of events that are happening in Boston, especially around AI,” May said. “The support we’re getting is great.”

But partnerships and free drinks, of course, aren’t all it takes to be successful.

Follow the Money

CB Insights has tracked a rise in Boston VC funding over the last five years (and early 2017 results follow that trend), addressing a weakness that had major implications for area startups in the past. If advances in AI methodologies and computational resources had aligned fifteen years ago, Boston entrepreneurs looking to start companies would’ve had a much more difficult time than today.

Havasi, for instance, said Luminoso had some trouble securing seed funding in Boston in 2010.

“There were certainly funding gaps,” Havasi said. “There wasn’t as much early-stage venture capital or AI venture capital in Boston when we started. That has changed tremendously both across the country and in Boston. Now there are a lot of funds that are very savvy about AI, and that’s fantastic.”

Indeed, when the folks at NextView Ventures sat down to update their excellent Hitchhiker's Guide to Boston Tech last year, they had a lot of additions to make to the investor section. AI companies seeking their first round of funding have been helped by a number of angel groups that have recently institutionalized, including Converge Venture Partners and Half Court Ventures, which May started with Todd Earwood last year.

Myrto said the founders of Hyperplane saw a gap in early-stage AI investing in the area when they launched their VC firm two years ago.

“We saw an opportunity with big data and machine learning in Boston seed investing,” Myrto said. “The thesis of Hyperplane from the very beginning was about machine intelligence and systems intelligence, and we believe Boston is one of the best places in the world to invest in enterprise systems intelligence.”

New firms in the area such as Pillar and Underscore.vc have invested in companies offering AI-driven solutions, with others such as Glasswing Ventures (founded in 2016) and Hyperplane (founded in 2015), focusing almost exclusively on AI.

The growing number of Boston VC firms comes as every firm scrambles to adopt an AI investing strategy. More established VC firms in the area including NextView Ventures, Boston Seed Capital, and Flybridge Capital Partners have also counted AI-driven local companies among their recent investments.

And, perhaps most importantly, we’re seeing investment strategies increasingly veer from the conservative reputation Boston earned in the past. May described west coast investors as more aggressive, helping companies raise large rounds in order to achieve heavy market share, then using their balance sheets as strategic weapons.

“There are pros and cons to that strategy, but it also leads to really big companies at the end of the day,” May said. “I think Boston VCs think less that way typically, and our culture always needs more people thinking big. But you’re seeing some companies raise a lot of money now, and there are some investors that are very west coast-minded.”

Boston’s shortcomings in this area have been talked about a lot. Often they’re referenced as a mistake not to be repeated. Boston investors heading new firms such as Pillar'sJaime Goldstein and Jeff Fagnan from Accomplice (which split from Atlas Venture a few years ago) are among those who have talked about the importance of building large, sustainable companies in the area.

Myrto, who describes Hyperplane as very “west coast-minded,” said he’s seen a change in investor mindsets as well.

“The new generation of venture capital is certainly more inclusive and risk-taking, and those two ingredients are important to having a sustainable ecosystem here,” Myrto said. “Being a little more aggressive in the way we look at technologies and a little more futuristic in the way we see the world is a key ingredient.”

Riding the AI Wave

The race to produce great AI companies has, of course, already begun. Haddad guesses we’re in the “second or third inning” of AI perforating every industry.

Boston has already seen many AI startups gain traction, in some cases helped by recent eye-popping funding rounds. In a three week stretch of March, for instance, DataRobot's predictive analytics platform helped it raise a $54 million Series C and Kensho's financial analysis software earned the company a $50 million Series B.

Big funding rounds are becoming increasingly common in the area. Boston startups are working to overcome some of the largest technical barriers holding AI back, and they’re attracting attention across a wide variety of industries in the process.

Examples of startups working to increase AI’s potential impact include Lightmatter and Forge.ai. Lightmatter is focused on using light, rather than electricity, to improve computational speed and efficiency for AI operations. Forge.ai helps businesses use unstructured data in machine learning systems.

Havasi’s Luminoso, meanwhile, uses AI to analyze customer feedback in 13 languages to give companies insights on product reviews, social media posts and more. May’s Talla integrates AI into office chat programs like Slack and Gchat to help employees automate repetitive processes within a company.

And a number of Boston AI startups are competing with the same tech giants that have recently set up shop in the city. Netra CEO Richard Lee says the company’s visual intelligence software is more accurate than Google in image recognition tasks in head-to-head tests. Newton-based Semantic Machines has raised more than $12 million to make a conversational AI that its website says will “enable people to communicate naturally with computers for the first time.” The Semantic team shares that goal with a number of companies building the next generation of smartphones and smart speakers.

Other Boston AI startups are just plain cool. Cogito uses AI and behavioral science to read people’s emotions in real time. Neurala's product, the Neurala Brain, uses neural network software that’s been designed to closely mimic the functioning of the brain. It was first used to increase the intelligence of NASA’s Mars rover.

Other Boston tech companies such as Localytics, dataxu and HubSpot also now leverage machine learning for core product offerings.

“With AI and machine learning, we’re still exploring where it’s going, but it’ll be everywhere,” Myrto said. “And it’s Boston’s race to lose because you can see all the ingredients are here, from the labs to the talent to even the government being more innovation focused. We’re very young and very hungry to make a big impact on the world. This could be a huge long-term benefit for Boston in general.”

Boston taking a leading role in AI’s implementation could also be good for humanity. Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” mindset poses little real danger in consumer tech, but the implications of further AI advancements require a much more thoughtful approach.

“You want to really change the world with AI,” Haddad explained. “Boston has been thinking about AI for a long time. If all you’re doing is optimizing for the short-term opportunity to make money, you’re looking too close to you. And if you’re stepping back and looking at the horizon, that’s also not good because the world needs faster change. Boston has really converged those two views. We’re looking at AI in terms of its impact on society, and those conversations don’t happen as much elsewhere.”

No one can predict exactly how far-reaching the AI wave will be or what companies will come to define it.  All we can do is consider how prepared the city is to support the next generation of entrepreneurs seeking to make their mark on the world.

In that sense, Boston seems to be in good shape to welcome the next Minsky to town.

Zach Winn is a contributor to VentureFizz. Follow Zach on Twitter: @ZachinBoston.

Images courtesy of Henry Han, GE, Gensler, Harvard i-Lab, and CB Insights.

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 19)

The Soldier's Trade – Exhibit: 1793–1870  The British Army garrisoned Toronto from 1793 to 1870. During that time it evolved in fundamental conformity to the developments in other western armies. The exhibit explores British military technology and practices in Canada in the fields of artillery, engineering, cavalry, command, infantry, medicine, and music.

The exhibit is a rich and graphic presentation of original and reproduction military objects which include uniforms, weapons, headgear, artillery, tools, musical instruments, and archaeological material. Large scale dioramas show the fort and associated defences in relation to the Town of York (Toronto) and its position on Toronto Bay as the city’s primary harbour defence. Featured objects include two large cannon used by York’s defenders during the Battle of York on 27 April 1813. One is an extremely rare form of British ordnance cast in between 1656–58 for the army of Oliver Cromwell. It is one of only two known to exist.

The Soldier's Trade occupies the upper and lower floors of Blockhouse Number 2, built in 1813 as a 160-man barracks and fortified structure. It was among the first army buildings to be constructed after the American attack on York.

Source

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 11)

Established in 1793 with the founding of York (Toronto), Fort York Heritage Conservation District (the Fort) is a large cultural landscape. It is located in downtown Toronto and is comprised of a perimeter system of early 19th century military defences, a number of historic military structures and buildings and open space outside of the Fort walls formerly comprising a portion of the garrison common reserve and fields of fire (glacis). Sited on a strategic triangle of land originally hemmed in by Lake Ontario to the south and Garrison Creek on the east and north, the modern landscape has changed radically since the Fort’s founding. Toronto City Council listed Fort York on the inaugural City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties in June 1973, and in 1985 the entire Fort York precinct was designated as a heritage conservation district. The district boundaries were expanded in 2004 to include more of the surrounding landscape and the Fort York Armoury, located outside the Fort walls.  The district is bounded to the north by the Canadian National Railway lines, to the east by Bathurst Street, to the south by Fort York Boulevard and Fleet Street and to the west by Strachan Avenue, although portions of the district extend past Strachan Avenue and Bathhurst Street on the east and west. The district, together with the nearby Victoria Memorial Park, has also been recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada as a National Historic Site. Historic Fort York is owned and operated as a museum by the City of Toronto. 

Source

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 25)

When Europeans first arrived at the site of York, the vicinity was inhabited by the Iroquoian Seneca tribe (from the Five Nations Iroquois of New York State), who by then had displaced the Wyandot (Huron) tribes that had occupied the region for centuries before c. 1600. By 1701, the Iroquoian villages that had been established along the north shore of Lake Ontario during the sixteenth century had been abandoned. The Algonkian Mississaugas then moved into the York region, created alliances with the former Iroquoian residents, and established their own settlements; one near the former Seneca village of Teiaiagon on the Humber River. 

The name Toronto is derived from indigenous sources. A portage route from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron running through this point, the Toronto Carrying-Place Trail, led to widespread use of the name. The word "toronto", meaning "plenty" appears in a French lexicon of the Huron language in 1632, and it appeared on French maps referring to various locations, including Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe, and several rivers. In Mohawk, the word tkaronto, meant "place where trees stand in the water".It refers to the northern end of what is now Lake Simcoe, where the Huron and preceding inhabitants had planted tree saplings to corral fish.

The shoreline was likely sandy and parts sloping down to Lake Ontario (see Geography of Toronto). The original shoreline followed what is now Front Street. Everything now south of Front Street is the result of land fill. The Toronto Islands were still connected to the mainland. It was wooded, with marshes in what is now Ashbridge's Bay and the then natural mouth of the Don (Keating Channel did not exist yet). Other than Lake Ontario, other waterways into old town included the Don and several other small creeks, such as Garrison Creek and Taddle Creek. 

Between 1710 and 1750, French traders established two trading posts on the Humber River, Magasin Royale, and Fort Toronto. The success of Fort Toronto led the French to build Fort Rouillé on the current Exhibition grounds in 1750. It only lasted until 1759, abandoned after the fall of Fort Niagara, when the French retreated to Montreal. The British arrived the next year with an army to secure the location. The British claimed all of New France after the 1763 Treaty of Paris, and extended the Province of Quebec to present-day Ontario.

After the American Revolutionary War, the region saw an influx of British settlers as United Empire Loyalists arrived in numbers north of Lake Ontario, as the British offered free land to many. As plans were being made to create the new province of Upper Canada, British North America Governor-General Lord Dorchester selected the area north of Toronto Bay for a new capital. Dorchester arranged for the Toronto Purchase with the Mississaugas of New Credit, thereby securing more than a 250,000 acres (1,000 km2) of land. The purchase was disputed in 1788, and a further agreement was made in 1805, but a final settlement of the purchase would only come 200 years later in 2010, for a total of CA$145 million. 

In 1791, Upper Canada was established, with Newark (Niagara-on-the-Lake) its first capital. The first Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe arrived in 1792 and first visited the Toronto Purchase site in May 1793. Impressed by the site and harbour, he moved the capital to Toronto, on a "temporary" basis, while he worked on plans to build a capital in the vicinity of London, Ontario. Simcoe renamed the townsite York, rejecting the aboriginal name. The name of York was chosen to please King George, as a compliment to the Duke of York, his son. Simcoe founded York on August 27, 1793. 

Simcoe and his family took residence in July 1793. They found the location to be an isolated wilderness, with dense forest right to the shore. A few families of Mississauga were the only residents and "immense coveys of fowl." They lived in a tent that once belonged to Captain James Cook the explorer, at the foot of today's Bathurst Street. It would be the temporary capital until 1796, when Simcoe abandoned his plans to make London the capital. The first parliament of Upper Canada convened in June 1797 in York, after Simcoe had returned to England and Peter Russell was named administrator of Upper Canada. 

The townsite was first surveyed in 1788, but Simcoe developed a new town plan. The Town of York was laid out in ten original blocks between today's Adelaide and Front streets (the latter following the shoreline) with the first church (St James Anglican), Town Hall and Wharf (named St Lawrence after the river) on the west and the first parliament buildings, blockhouse and windmill on the east. Taddle Creek lay on the eastern boundary, the Don River and its wetland further to the east. Two main roads were laid out: Dundas Street (today's Queen Street) and Yonge Street, which was built as far north as the Holland River. In 1797, a garrison was built east of modern-day Bathurst Street, on the east bank of Garrison Creek.

In August 1796, Charles McCuen, a soldier in the Queen's Rangers, murdered Wabakinine, a Mississauga chief and one of the signers of the Toronto Purchase, on the waterfront. The murder of Wabakinine and his wife threatened to derail the peace between the British and the Mississaugas. The Mississaugas, already frustrated by the failed promises of the Toronto Purchase, considered a counterattack, either on the capital itself or on nearby pioneer farms. The York authorities brought McCuen to trial for murder but he was ultimately acquitted due to lack of evidence. An uprising was averted through the efforts of Joseph Brant, a First Nations interpreter, guide and diplomat. 

All land south of Dundas Street was reserved for expansion of the Town or Fort by the government as 'the Commons'. North of Dundas Street was the "Liberties", the eventual rural Township of York. It was divided into large 'park lots' where the city's moneyed elite built their estates, such as 'the Grange' and 'Moss park.' With time, some of these estate lots were subdivided, like the Macaulay family estate between Yonge St and Osgoode Hall (now Toronto City Hall), which became a working-class neighbourhood known as Macaulaytown. The original townsite area is today known as the "Old Town". 

Source: Wikipedia

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 5)

Fort York was designated a national historic sites of Canada in 1923 because: - Fort York constituted the primary defensive position of early York (Toronto); and - the seven buildings erected between 1813 and 1815 are important surviving examples of British military architecture.

The heritage value of this site resides in directly related resources, including War of 1812 seven buildings within the restored, bastioned earthwork, the open mustering ground to the west, a military cemetery at Strahan Avenue, and other related lands currently cut of the main area by elevated roads.

Fort York, the birthplace of the modern city of Toronto, was established in the late eighteenth century by the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada John Graves Simcoe to house a garrison of British soldiers, creating a secure location which would attract permanent settlers. During the War of 1812, the fort was burned by invading Americans and subsequently rebuilt by the British who continued to garrison the fort. In 1870, they were replaced by Canadian forces who used the fort until the 1930s. Between 1932 and 1934, the City of Toronto restored the fort as a historic site. Further work was carried out in 1949.

Now separated from the fort by roads and a railway corridor, the military burial ground that forms part of Victoria Memorial Square was opened in 1794 for the internment of soldiers and their families. It was in use until 1863 by which time it had reached its capacity of 500 burials. Almost immediately the public moved to preserve it, both as a cemetery, and as public park. In 1905, it was renamed Victoria Memorial Square.

Source

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 24)

York was a town and second capital of the district of Upper Canada. It is the predecessor to the old city of Toronto (1834–1998). It was established in 1793 by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe as a "temporary" location for the capital of Upper Canada, while he made plans to build a capital near today's London, Ontario. Simcoe renamed the location York after Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, George III's second son. Simcoe gave up his plan to build a capital at London, and York became the permanent capital of Upper Canada on February 1, 1796. That year Simcoe returned to Britain and was temporarily replaced by Peter Russell.

The original townsite was a compact ten blocks near the mouth of the Don River and a garrison was built at the channel to Toronto Harbour. Government buildings and a law court were established. Yonge Street was built, connecting York to the Holland River to the north. To the east, Kingston Road was built to the mouth of the Trent River. In 1797, the town site was expanded to the west to allow for public buildings and expansion. One of the new area's public functions, a public market, was started in 1803. It continues today as St. Lawrence Market.

The garrison was attacked during the War of 1812. As the British Army retreated, it blew up the garrison, leading to the death of numerous American soldiers and the American general commanding the attack. The victorious Americans sacked the town and burned down the government buildings. The Americans chose not to occupy the town and the British eventually returned without conflict. A retribution attack was made on the American capital of Washington.

After the war was over, the town continued to grow, expanding to the west, leaving the original town site, a less desirable location, somewhat undeveloped. A new parliament building was erected, near the original location, but this burned down and a new building was built in the new lands to the west. A permanent fort, Fort York, was built on the site of the garrison. Dundas Street was built to connect York to towns to the west. In the 1820s, the town experienced a surge of immigrants, expanding from 1,000 residents to over 9,000 by the time the town was incorporated as the City of Toronto in 1834. During its existence, the town did not have its own government; it was governed by the province of Upper Canada, with a mix of elected officials and an aristocracy known as the Family Compact controlling the government. By 1830, this led to an ongoing political conflict, which would later lead to the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion. 

Source: Wikipedia

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 23)

Following the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837 Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada Sir George Arthur directed the construction of a Sherbourne Blockhouse, and a ring of six other blockhouses -- to guard the approaches to Toronto in case there was another rebellion. The Sherbourne Blockhouse was located at the northern end of Sherbourne Street, at the current intersection with Bloor, just south of the Rosedale Ravine.

The blockhouses were two stories tall, and designed to accommodate up to 44 soldiers. The two stories were at 45 degrees to one another—a design intended to make it easier to observe in all directions.

Construction of the blockhouses was budgeted at 330 British Pounds. They were completed in 1838.  By 1850 they were staffed by a skeleton crew of former soldiers, who served as caretakers. The Spadina Blockhouse was demolished sometime before 1854.  The Yonge Blockhouse was demolished in 1865.  The Sherbourne Blockhouse was demolished in 1875. Numerous sketches of it have survived to the current day. 

Source: Wikipedia

John Graves Simcoe, the first Governor of Upper Canada, planned for defences for the mouth of Toronto Harbour, at Fort York, and with a Gibraltar Point Blockhouse, on the south bank of the entrance. 

In 1800 a storehouse and guardhouse were added, but the battery was destroyed in 1813 and rebuilt as a blockhouse in 1814. The blockhouse was two storeys tall, with the upper platform having no roof and with its floor consumed with a traversing carriage for a single cannon. An oven permitted supplying the cannon with "hot shot"—cannonballs heated so they could start fires on the highly inflammable ships of the era.  The lower floor could barrack thirty staff.  The blockhouses walls were formed from two parallel wooden walls, with the gap in between was filled with tightly packed earth.

The blockhouse played no active part in the defence of York, when it was captured during the War of 1812. 

During peacetime the barracks at the Gibraltar Point Blockhouse were used to quarantine seriously ill individuals. 

The blockhouse was in ruins by 1823 and removed by 1833.

Source: Wikipedia

[rabbitcruiser]

Fort York National Historic Site of Canada, Toronto (No. 12)

Fort York Heritage Conservation District (the Fort) is of heritage value due to its association with many local, national and international events, including the birth of Toronto, which occurred when York was designated as the provincial capital and a garrison was established at the present site of the Fort.

It was the most important military and harbour defence in the Toronto area for over 90 years, and is associated with the Old Northwest Frontier Crisis (1787-96) and the Mississauga Crisis (1796-8). The Fort was the site of two major military actions during the war of 1812 and is of international significance as a relatively undisturbed historic battlefield and cemetery. The destruction of Government House, built at the Fort as the centre of executive authority in the province, and the sacking of York led to the retaliatory raid on Washington, the sacking of the U.S. Capital and the burning of the Whitehouse. The Fort is associated with a number of significant historical organizations and persons from this period, including the Queens Rangers (constructed Fort), Lt. Governor John Graves Simcoe (founded York, built Fort), Elizabeth Simcoe, Major General Isaac Brock (improved fortifications), American Brigadier General Zebulon Pike (killed at Battle of York), Col Roger Sheaffe (commander of Fort at Battle of York), Bishop John Strachan and the British military engineer Lt. Colonel Ralph Bruyeres (rebuilt Fort). In the years that followed, the Fort was strengthened at times of crisis, such as in 1838 following the civil unrest, during the Fenian Raids and during the Anglo-American tensions of the 1860s. In later years, it was an enlistment site for recruits during the Boer War and WWI. The architecturally significant Fort York Armoury, built outside the Fort walls by Marani, Lawson & Morris in 1933, is associated with several Canadian military regiments who saw active service during 20th century conflicts, including the Queens York Rangers, the Toronto Scottish Regiment and the Royal Regiment of Canada. Beyond its military significance the Fort is of value due to its association with the development of Toronto. The presence of the Garrison at the Fort in the 19th century played a significant economic and cultural role in the City and, due in part to its location, the Fort had a significant effect on the coming of the railways in the 1850s, lake-filling, and on the nature and location of industry and waterfront development. In the 1930s, it became the site of a government sponsored make work capital project typical in Canada during the Great Depression. The Fort is also of value because of its association with the beginnings of the preservation movement in Toronto and beyond. In 1889 the City requested that the federal government convey to it the Old Fort so that it might be preserved and maintained on account of its association with the City’s early history. In 1907 local heritage associations and citizen groups fought to prevent the construction of streetcar lines through the Fort. The Fort was transferred to the City in 1909 and became the only major urban fortification in Canada to be transferred to a municipality. It was restored (1932/34) as the city’s bicentennial project, opening in 1934 as the earliest municipally operated military heritage attraction in Canada. In 1959 the Fort was saved from destruction when the Gardiner Expressway was re-routed, in the process becoming a rallying point for the preservation movement and an impetus for the founding of the Toronto Historical Board. Numerous heritage organizations and advocates have been affiliated with the Fort, now the oldest surviving collection of buildings in the City, and it possesses a symbolic position in the history of preservation and history of museums in Ontario and Canada.

Source