JENNA WARE, MSW, LCSW is former NSA, Ft. Meade; a licensed psychotherapist, former forensic psychiatric social worker with felons; transsexual, in all the trenches since 1981; involved with Virginia Tech since the mid-1990s, co-founder of the Joseph F. Ware, Jr. Advanced Engineering Laboratory. The combination of these things made the prediction possible and a suggestion necessary.
How Virginia Tech Inspired this Killing
Trans/Non-binary Sex Hatred at VT
A Few Examples of T Sex Hate at VT and Their Maneuvering to Avoid Inclusion
What do Sex and Gender Mean at Virginia Tech?
We can see how people enable hate crimes against non-binarism if we see how they feel about different aspects of it. This isn’t seen if sex and gender are conflated; it is more clear when they’re seen separately. And cultural expectations influence individual behavior.
How Virginia Tech Inspired this Killing
Embracing “gender” issues for non-binary persons, while avoiding their sex issues, is not always out of compassion for their modesty; sometimes it’s just rejection—and can enable prejudice, mask a hate or disgust, that gets people killed.
Jerry Paul Smith was killed in Blacksburg, VA on 5/31/21. A VT student was indicted for his murder. His trial begins 5/26/22, Montgomery Circuit Court, Room 4B, 9:00 am, Case Number: CR21001261-00.
I believe the perpetrator was influenced by Virginia Tech’s culture of trans/non-binary sex hatred (SEE BELOW). A death like Jerry’s was predictable and could have been prevented. I saw it coming; I warned numerous VT administrators several times; I tried to stop it; but I was ignored. I give specific examples below.
There may be a reason why I predicted this to VT Administration and no one else did. Most people see physical sex and gender as largely the same thing, a “fact” we encounter every day of our lives.
Embracing “gender” from this perspective means embracing both.
But I see sex and gender as two different things usually seen together—evidenced by
- the point of sex-and-gender non-binarism, to be of one sex and another gender, and/or
- an attraction to same, gynandromorphophilia.
Embracing gender with considerations such as these does NOT mean embracing both.
The current ethos is gender-centric for trans and non-binary people, based on social denial of sex issues, is a social movement that only gained legs early in this century. It is out of fashion to acknowledge them, though it was common in the 20th century, but we must discuss issues that could enable prejudice or trigger a perpetrator, so we can see how to save lives.
The sexual needs and goals of transgenderism were taught to me, openly, by MtF transgenders decades ago, where the goal was to be sexually male while living in the gender role of a woman—as told to me by several, and also by Dr. Virginia Prince in How to Be a Woman Though Male, “[men who were attracted wanted to know that] underneath the dress is a penis” (1971, p. 169). Virginia and others were not sharing this to embarrass anyone; rather it was to assert what is enjoyed.
The phenomenon continues in the 21st century. Society has been agreeing to interpret trans/non-binary people as rather de-sexed—yet sex and gender are still treated as two different things for them: (1) a couple million transgenders move on a perceived gender “continuum, to where they are more comfortable,” because the gender shift is wanted, but stop before seeking the sexual form and function of the opposite sex, because it is something else, not wanted; and (2) society says talk about “gender” and not “sex”…
The perpetrator who would batter, rape, or kill does not agree to be in denial of these sex issues. They are a reality allowed in society to be considered “offensive” to even mention, let alone be sexual with, particularly if others find out.
This awareness of sex and gender being treated as two different things helps me see what is preferred in society and what is hated:
- How to know when society embracing gender is a cover-up for hating sex? Delve into them both, and see where there is comfort or distress.
- Why does it matter? Because real life exists and will be discovered by some who react violently, or it may even be preferred by others who may act out violently to prevent being identified with the stigma.
- How can we avoid violence with this stigma? Make it not be a stigma. Individuals may choose privacy, but institutions must include trans/non-binary sex issues, not just gender, in statements of protections and respect—just as for issues of race, orientation, gender identity, religion, or other—so that people can lean on them when they need help.
The act of excluding, or treating trans/non-binary sex issues as not okay to say, enables prejudice. There are people for whom prejudice or hate are encouraged if you refuse to say a thing is okay.
VT Administration does this.
Trans/Non-binary Sex Hatred at VT
How This Developed
I know society hates mention of a trans person’s
- need to be a physical sex (physically, sexually male or female),
- needed sexual response (not orientation, who one is in bed with, but response, who one is in bed AS), and
- sex identity (not identifying as a man or woman or role in society, but identifying with a biological sex, male or female)…
…and so does Virginia Tech.
If someone wants to say it’s only about gender or gender identity for them, fine. But VT is not a person; it is an institution with people and stakeholders of all kinds. Others deserve to be included if they’re about physical sex or sex identity—only or also—and to not be demeaned for asserting that or asking for inclusion. Yet, gender-focused persons (for non-binary) are disgusted or afraid of “sex” being mentioned.
So what I have adjusted to in advocating at Virginia Tech for the last few years is the least I could think of, the fewest number of words, the fewest letters, the least direct mention for both (1) transgenders who fear rejection and (2) a society which hates…that would allow support for the idea of people who have an identity that relates to physical sex issues: “…sex or…” as in “…sex or gender identity…”
That is not illegal, is an indirect inclusion, just 5 letters, 2 words. I can’t think how to make it less. I’ve asked VT for discourse on this for years, but I’ve never been able to attain it.
Yet VT refuses this—and has tolerated as a result my repeated charges they have a culture of hatred that could enable hate crimes or murder, that I predicted violence that came true, even my continued assertions since Smith’s death that they MUST listen, that this is not a problem they can avoid… VT’s hatred of saying trans/non-binary sex issues are included in university protections and respect is so great, they won’t even include TWO WORDS as a start to embrace people who need their help, noting that the number of trans people who identify per physical sex is small, these days, but the number of people in general who identify per physical sex is large.
And VT has denegrated or demeaned me for advocating, mentioning trans/non-binary sex issues:
- administrators squirming in their seat,
- finding ways to avoid,
- rejecting me completely,
- falsely representing events to both VT and me,
- employing intimidating techniques,
- agreeing to do something, doing something else, then claiming to have done what was agreed,
- refusing to speak offending sex-related words,
- rhinencephalic responses (wrinkling nose as if it smells bad),
- leaving the room with me left sitting alone, or even
- a sharp alarm at the topics as if fearing a spider may bite.
There are also objective things that have been written to me in email or letters that support the above:
- At my request in 2018, VT considered these issues in governance, though a wrong version, and rejected inclusion,
- then without my bidding the Commission (CEOD) made a surprise unanimous decision that these sex issues were real and separate from gender issues—saying “gender identity” does not mean “sex identity”—and
- they have published this (SEE BELOW),
- yet VT has repeatedly refused inclusion for aspects or identities relating to those “sex” issues, other than orientation, though
- Compliance admits in writing they could include if they wanted to, they just don’t want to—a purposeful exclusion—opting instead for the minimum inclusions required by Title IX…
- VT has also taken the posture of refusing my right to petition the university for inclusion of these things, which they had formerly recognized, saying I’m no longer considered to be the right kind of stakeholder.
- VT still de-facto refuses to discuss these things and my suggestion below after what I told them I feared came true.
VT remains at risk to violence in this area.
Because of things like all these above—with about 130 administrators and professors acting in administrative roles individually, on Commissions, and on Councils—I came to believe there is a culture of hatred in VT Administration for sex-and-gender non-binarism, that they want to distance the concept by only dealing with non-binary representations of gender, as if the sex issues are offensive to have or include—and I began telling them in 2018 that this sets a standard in the culture of VT that could enable prejudice, hate crimes, or murder. By 2020, I was spelling it out to VT, plainly, trying to prevent it:
9/28/20 email below to the Chair of the CEOD, the
VT Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity
“This overall T sex-negative atmosphere at VT says trans person sexualities are not okay to discuss or have and enables prejudice and even hate crimes against trans people. If you’ve avoided larger hate crimes, you’re lucky; they happen, and you can’t expect that to last
04/20 web page request to the VT University Council
(When I inform VT by web page, I notify them by introductory email with a link.)
“…surprise violence results—anything from assault and battery to rape or murder. Maybe [the perpetrator] didn’t know, maybe he feels he’s been tricked into a gay act, maybe he isn’t sexually secure enough to deal with the surprise…”
- I repeatedly told the Office of Inclusion, the Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity (CEOD), the University Council, the President, and the governing Board of Visitors, etc.
- I told them how it could happen,
- I told them why it could happen (surprise violence per unexpected NB sexuality discovered while having sex or gynandromorphophilia if non-self-accepting, i.e., being attracted to someone of one sex and another gender yet insecure about it, especially if friends find out—in a culture that hates it),
- I gave them a specific example of another murder occurring as I feared at VT.
See below for some screenshots I’ve put together for brief examples.
The nature I sensed at VT was/is real; the danger was/is real. Smith is dead, and Virginia Tech and the surrounding areas remain at risk.
Regardless of whether Smith intended later transition to another gender, permanently, it appears he presented as a woman, “Angie,” they had oral sex, Etute later learned Smith was male, enraged, killed. This could be surprise violence due to hatred for an unexpected sexuality in sex-and-gender non-binarism, or insecure gynandromorphophilia, particularly if friends found out. Society is not generally accepting of people being attracted to others who are of one sex and another gender, nor even that such people are okay when discovered.
The popular view demeans the minority view. I’m reminded of the ways both hatred and evasions were obvious in society when gay people were “known” to be mentally ill, made criminal, or when Black people were “known” to be less, without a soul, marked by God in the Bible, okay to be owned and abused as property by more common and “correct” White people. Trans and non-binary sexualities are not less, wrong, or offensive; it’s just something else society says is okay to hate and hurt.
I love VT—other than their disdain for T and NB sex issues, maneuvering to avoid, and their treatment of me—and I don’t want to hurt it. I am a benefactor there, a stakeholder. My husband was born and raised literally on the SE edge of campus, 404 Clay St.. But my highest motivation is to save lives. With my decades of involvement with this, Virginia Tech level of trans/non-binary sex-negativity has astonished me. We must recognize this prejudice as it relates to quality of life for all and to hate crimes that can result. It’s not okay to just minimally comply with law or avoid gender-not-sex cancel culture; allowing even a denied prejudice to exist is about life and death.
A Few Examples of T Sex Hate at VT and Their Maneuvering to Avoid Inclusion
Some emails first, web page extracts second. More can be provided if requested.
In the emails, I was at first gentle, trying to get VT to see. If I were too direct, VT would have cut me off for my “attitude.” Yet I become more clear as time went by. Later, by 2020, I spell it out in greater detail.
I am now spelling out my fear more clearly.
“This overall T sex-negative atmosphere at VT says trans person sexualities are not okay to discuss or have and enables prejudice and even hate crimes against trans people. If you’ve avoided larger hate crimes, you’re lucky; they happen, and you can’t expect that to last.”
This email from 12/2/18.
I began this subject gently, then increasing over time.
Menah is the VP of Inclusion and Strategy at VT; Michele is under her relating to such as education there.
This is an example of a murder I feared.
Deyu was Chair of the CEOD, Menah VP of Inclusion, the CEOD is the Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity, governance.
This complains about the prejudice I see in their offices.
Examples from some of my
WEB PAGE requests to the CEOD and UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
04/2021: This is from my request to the University Council
“…surprise violence results—anything from assault and battery to rape or murder. Maybe he didn’t know, maybe he feels he’s been tricked into a gay act, maybe he isn’t sexually secure enough to deal with the surprise.”
What Do Sex and Gender Mean at Virginia Tech?
Just so you know, when interpreting what is said at Virginia Tech, VT makes it clear that when touting “gender” issues, they do NOT mean “sex” issues, as people tend to infer. VT says,
“With regard to sex and gender, we recognize that the terms gender identity, gender expression, and transgender are not synonymous with the terms sex identity, sex expression, and transsexual, nor is one set of terminology a subset of the other set” (italics mine).
Now, that is correct, and one should expect a research university to embrace specificity. But then and since, VT has repeatedly and purposefully excluded the sex issues from campus policies on guidance and respect.
It was the VT governance Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity (CEOD) which made that unanimous statement—which is controversial at VT with a smaller faction supporting the truth of it, while the larger portion of VT insists on gender issues and hiding T/NB sex issues. The statement has been published, taken down 3 times and put up 4 since 2018—so far—and the CEOD has avoided putting it in its minutes—surprising for a UNANIMOUS Commission statement. If you can find it, please let me know. I can’t find it.
So non-discrimination statements at VT, and the Principles of Community, do NOT mean VT is accepting of T/NB sex issues. Rather, they’re specifically identified as unwanted.
Documents to support what I’m saying—just trying to show something objective from VT that supports my contentions:
Menah Pratt-Clarke, JD, PhD, is the VP of Strategy and Inclusion at VT and is also on the CEOD. I know her below statement is true, even though it’s not in CEOD minutes, because I’ve talked with many administrators about it since 2018. The promise of the last sentence, I’ve been told-of in indirect ways but have not been able to verify:
Here below is where VT published it. It’s kind of hidden away, hard to find, unless you search for it specifically. Google “virgnia tech sex identity transsexual” and you should find it, or so far you can use this link.
What is missing here in VT’s non-discrimination statement? An inclusive sex counterpart for “gender identity.” Remember, at VT, gender issues do not mean sex issues.
Things that VT could do—or maybe better than these, if I could get discourse with them on the subject:
- SEX ED COURSE required of all undergrads on human sexuality in all its real-life aspects, including as well genetic, neurologic, psychologic, social, and legal issues of both sex and gender for all variations of people; including as well as most people, non-binary, transgender, transsexual, intersex, cis, gay, lesbian, bi, queer, other, +…; for those attracted to them as well, including also gynandromorphophilia; social disrespect, violence, and hurtful aspects of rejection;
- MODEL RESPECT not only of those who are different but also those who are attracted to those who are different;
- TOLERANCE for dissent and other ways of looking at things, stop slamming dissent as that promotes a way, and people are varied;
- LGBTQ+ campus institutions stop rejecting people, including trans people, who identify more per physical sex than gender; set a standard for accepting others even if they see things differently;
- STOP FEARING sex topics when they arise—practice not being shocked because that demeans.
- BATHROOM redesign based on individual stalls and public hand-washing—a more modern version of what we’ve all used at county fairs, music festivals, renaissance faires, and air shows for years—so there is neither exclusion nor fear;
- INCLUDE T/NB SEX ISSUES, at least “…sex or…” or something like it in campus statements of respect and protections, such as non-discrimination statements and VT’s Principles of Community.
- TEACH STUDENTS to go out and enter the world prepared to succeed as themselves—not as a limited presentation of self that hides their sexuality, which results in marginal integration for most and promotes the sex stigmata behind so much trouble, e.g., following the more open, successful gay acceptance social model.