Come to Think of it, I’ve Never Seen Morgan Meneses-Sheets and Cathy Brennan in the Same Room at the Same Time

Good news: The person that Free State Just Us was trying to turn into a Trans Jemima for the nefarious purpose of creating a public perception of having an understanding of the reality of trans people’s lives, has realized that she was being used.

Sandy Rawls the director of Trans-United announced on her facebook profile that her group has withdrawn its support of Equality Maryland’s transgender ‘equality’ bill minus public accommodations.


Now, of course, comes what everyone with years of experience dealing with duplicitous, greed-addled Marriage Derangement Syndrome sufferers – in Maryland and elsewhere – should have known was coming all along:

Morgan Meneses-Sheets executive director of Equality Maryland which was instrumental in getting HB235 written without public accommodations quickly commented on Trans-United withdrawal of support.

Well, apparently Morgan Meneses-Sheets has taken some advance coursework in saying “incrmental progress” without actually uttering the words “incremental progress.”

Isn’t that special?

Of course it is.

About as special as the reality being illuminated by Laura Hart, a former trans board member of Free State Just Us, er.., Inequality, er…, Equality Maryland.  As quoted at planetransgender, Hart paints an interesting picture of Free State Just Us’s claim that trans people actually signed off on this year’s public accommodations-free trans bill:

There was a statement I read early on in this controversy which stated that the trans community was consulted and agreed to dropping public accommodations. I was on that phonecon and I can tell you they took the phonecon out of context. The call took place within days of the end of the legislative session in 2009. We were told that if we did not remove public accommodations, the bill was dead. If we did, we had a fighting but only outside chance of getting it to move. We were told that if it died in 2009 then 2010 will be an election year, 2011 will be all about marriage equality and they would not come back for GI anti-discrimination until 2012, 2013, maybe even 2015. In the hope of getting something done in 2009, we agreed. I doubt the decision would be the same if we had any idea that accepting this, under short term duress, would result in a permanent ceiling on what we would ever fight to enact.

That’s even less incremental than I’d been presuming the real plan was…

which brings it all back to 2001…

In deference to Kathleen, who pointed me to these nuggets of recent-ness from one of the conjoined twins of Maryland Transphobia of 2001, I’ll fully repost her references (as text, in case the images don’t show up well) to these that she posted as a comment elsewhere:

Cathy Brennan: Why did Equality Maryland fail to endorse Hector Torres, a strong supporter of marriage equality? Because of the trans bill? Have you asked Hector Torres where he stands on that bill?
September 3, 2010 at 10:12am—&#8211://///——&#8211://////——

O’Malley – once again – is confused as to what “equality” means. “Equality” does not mean some separate and maybe kind of not as equal system (Mr. Governor, you may recall a case called Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by a little case called Brown v. Board of Education when you were in law school…). Equal means equal. You are either for gay marriage and equality, or you are in favor of discrimination – you can take your civil union and stick it with the Plessy decision. You cannot have it both ways. Own your view, Mr. Governor, and live with the consequences, but enough of the smarmy double-talk – we are not all dumb enough to believe you.

Oh, and gay shillers for O’Malley – bite me, I don’t respect what you have to say.

Posted by: Cathy Brennan | September 17, 2010 4:02 PM


I guess that separate and lesser equality thing is just fine – so long as it only applies to trans people.

That last line, BTW, was from Kathleen, not Cathy of Maryland Marriage Derangement Syndrome Land.

Oh wait…

Maybe, for her, its (at the risk of being labeled an anti-dentite) DDS: Divorce Derangement Syndrome?

Now that same-sex couples can legally marry in the District, a new issue is popping up: gay divorce.While some couples say “I do,” others are bidding each other “adieu” — and courts and laws are struggling to keep up.

Cathy Brennan says she “hopefully” wants to “get a divorce.”

These gays want everything, no?

Brennan and her soon-to-be-ex wife tied the knot in Vermont several years ago. They now live in Maryland. When their relationship soured, they could not divorce because their home state did not recognize same sex marriage.

“Courts have been reluctant to grant divorces because they didn’t know what to do with a gay marriage,” Brennan said.

And yet, a decade ago Brennan seemed soooooooooooooooooooooooooo confident that Maryland courts would know exactly what to do with trans anti-discrimination cases brought in non-trans-inclusive-law Maryland.  Why?  Because of a handful of trial court and administrative law opinions from the outlying parts of Maryland…

you know, Connecticut and Massachusetts. 

I guess they stopped teaching geography in Maryland schools back when Spiro Agnew was governor, eh?  But I digress…

I wonder how eager courts in Maryland have been over the last ten years to find that Connecticut (North Maryland?)  state decisions on Connecticut (North Maryland?) sex discrimination law are binding – or even have the slightest bit of relevance – in Maryland.

I wonder if all of the people who have decided to march in lockstep adherence to what Free State Just Us has in mind for 2011 are aware that ten years ago Cathy Brennan (1) declared that if a person or organization that “opposes the Antidiscrimination Act, it has taken an anti-gay position” even if that position was based on that bill’s trans-discriminatory shortcomings, yet (2) somehow took issue with the converse position which held that opposing trans-inclusion was anti-trans.

One wonders how many of those who are, at this very moment, drinking the vintage 2011 Free State Just Us kool-aid are aware that people like Brennan declared a decade ago – whilst demanding oaths of fealty to the gay-only bill – that:

one cannot argue with a person or group of people who insist on believing one thing about this legislation that is not in fact true (i.e. that this bill won’t help certain folks – and that Price Waterhouse and its progeny, as well as the state law prohibiting gender discrimination, are not helpful to folks).

and yet have apparently never come forward with even the slightest bit of evidence to show that her theory bore fruit – or even germinated.

In response to someone who had the temerity to accurately assert that “it is disingenuous to claim that TG protections already exist,” Brennan said:

What we have said, repeatedly, is that we should litigate cases under sex/gender discrimination to see if we can do it. We think we can. We need folks to step up to do that.

That is what Price Waterhouse is about – sex stereotyping. There have been successful cases using this theory.

But, of course, none to that point had been under Maryland state law – which, of course, was what was under consideration at the Maryland Legislature that year (and this.)

On March 17, 2001, Brennan pimped the In re John/Jane Doe declaratory ruling
of November 9, 2000….

a ruling from the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights

On March 19, 2001, in response to being told that that, and other decisions she had pointed to “[we]re limited to Massachusetts and Connecticut,” she responded:

That is true. However, lawyers use cases from other jurisdictions when there is no controlling precedent in the state

which begs the question of why Maryland gays and lesbians such as herself weren’t content on using cases like Oncale v. Sundonwer and, while we’re at it, Price Waterhouse, to try and weave some sort of rudimentary gay-ish protections that, of course, would not result in any overt postings in employment offices saying that sexual orientation was a protected classification.

Upon having, yet again, a reality pointed out to get, namely: “Those states have their own sex discrimination statutes. Depending on how a state’s statute is written, gender may or may not fall under it,” Brennan responded:

This is not entirely accurate. Title VII which says sex covers sex stereotyping, which is what discrimination against transgendered folks is. Sex and gender are used interchangebaly in most statutes and include sex sterotyping. The distinctions some folks make (gender identity, expression) are sociological, not legal.

I wonder if she have given that as firm legal advice for a paying client to rely on?

The distinctions some folks make


Some folks like judges.

Which makes me wonder how much her malpractice insurance would have gone up shortly thereafter?

When confronted with: “A good legal defense is just that. It is not explicit legal protection. While we should be encouraged by the New England news and consider using those approaches, it is no substitute for crafting laws that protect us all. Cases proceed one by one under each circumstance, and even the federal verdict only guarentees the right for students to expres themselves, not to deny a transexual employment. Only the Connecticut case talked about employment, and there it would be VERY diffiuclt to mount a case regarding hiring practices vs. firing practices,” Brennan again couldn’t be bothered with the reality of the legal regime that would be created by the law that she and the others in Maryland’s gay and lesbian elite wanted:

Litigation is often stronger than statutory protections

Again, when confronted with “If MD’s law is sex based and not gender based, then we probably have no protections under current law,” a reality actually borne out by other state law decisions, Brennan again went for the crackpipe and demanded that the sober people defer to her delusions:

This is an inaccurate reading of what sex has been interpreted to mean by many courts. Again, you are confusing sociological terms with legal ones.

I refer thee to:

Maffei v. Kolaeton Indus., Inc., 626 N.Y.S. 2d 391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (holding that city ordinance prohibiting “gender” discrimination protects transsexuals)

If you follow the link, you’ll find a list of cases – many of which are state law, yet none of which are from Maryland!

As for the Maffei opinion? It involved a transsexual – and the judge wrote:

The crucial issue presented herein is whether harassment against a transsexual is included within the purview of the aforequoted statutes. In setting forth his position, plaintiff does not argue that the Federal law is applicable, but rather appears to principally rely upon the provision of the City law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I find that this City provision, however, does not aid plaintiff. Subdivision (20) of section 8-102 of the Administrative Code defines “sexual orientation” to mean “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality”. The term is thus dealing with sexual preferences and practices, i.e., the sex of a person’s sexual partner, with heterosexuals being persons sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, homosexuals being those attracted to members of the same sex, and bisexuals attracted to both sexes. There is no claim that the harassment alleged herein is the result of any sexual preferences expressed by plaintiff.

So much for the theory that a gay-only law does squat for trans folks, eh? Yet, the trans man prevailed.


In examining the City statute, it is noted that as originally enacted by Local Laws, 1965, No. 97 of the City of New York it referred to discrimination based on “sex”. However, subsequently the term “gender” was substituted for the word “sex”. While the reason for this change is not apparent, one court ( Dobre v National R. R. Passenger Corp., supra), which determined that transsexuals are not covered by the word “sex” in title VII, observed that the result would be different if instead the term “gender” had been used, stating: “The term ‘sex’ in Title VII refers to an individual’s distinguishing biological or anatomical characteristics, whereas the term ‘gender’ refers to an individual’s sexual identity. Holloway, 566 F.2d at 662-63.” (850 F Supp, at 286, supra.)

Maryland anti-discrimination law?

§ 20-602. State policy

It is the policy of the State, in the exercise of its police power for the protection of the public safety, public health, and general welfare, for the maintenance of business and good government, and for the promotion of the State’s trade, commerce, and manufacturers:

(1) to assure all persons equal opportunity in receiving employment and in all labor management-union relations, regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability unrelated in nature and extent so as to reasonably preclude the performance of the employment; and

(2) to that end, to prohibit discrimination in employment by any person.

At any point after 2001 did Cathy Brennan or Shannon Avery or Liz Seaton or Free State Just Us or GLCCB or any gay or lesbian person in Maryland currently making marriage wants a higher priority than trans employment needs make any effort to get the Maryland Legislature to effectuate that sort of change to Maryland statutory law?

Again I ask: Does Cathy Brennan’s employer – and that employer’s clients – know about the blatantly disingenuous, dishonest and deceiftul – and, if none of those, then incompetent – garbage that she was shovelling around back in 2001?

How about a little more of the history of Maryland as written by Cathy Brennan and Judge Shannon Avery perhaps now don’t want people to remember, eh?

Lets look at a sequence of events from roughly nine years and eleven months ago.

The introduction (BTW, I unearthed this from one of Phyllis Frye’s Phyllabuster mass e-mails) comes from Maryland attorney Alyson Meiselman, a trans woman who, when last I checked, has one trans-specific appearance before Maryland’s high court more than any of the transphobic mouthpieces of that decade or this (and, given that Alyson’s count is one – in the In re Helig case, which wasn’t discrimination-related – that should say much about the ever-so-expert-on-trans-discrimination-law spewing that is to come in this exchange, spewing which emanates from Der Brennanista).

On March 28, 2001, Alyson wrote:

The following is part of the exchange regarding the Maryland 2001 Anti-discrimination Bill, which will be sent to Governor Glendening upon passage by the Maryland House at the end of this week. Governor Glendening is the National Lesbian & Gay Law Association (NLGLA) 2000 “Allies of Justice” Award recipient. Quoting from the Baltimore Sun, Wednesday, March 28, 2001, “It should be quite clear that here in Maryland, we do not discriminate against anyone for any reason anywhere in the state,” Glendening said Tuesday.” Based on that statement, I suppose I’m not “anyone,” or even human. And, while it is true that, “This is a very important day for fairness, justice and inclusion,” Glendening said. “We’ll have a fairer state as a result of this.” (Washington Post, Wednesday, March 28, 2001), I feel betrayed and totally excluded.

Now let us proceed to a positively wet press release from March 27, 2001:

Cathy Brennan
Shannon Avery

GLCCB Applauds Senate Movement on Civil Rights Bill Maryland Poised to Join 11 Other States, D.C. In Banning Sexual Orientation Discrimination Annapolis, MD (March 27, 2001): The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Baltimore and Central Maryland applauded the decision early this morning by the Maryland Senate to give approval on second reader to a bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

By a significant margin, the Maryland Senate voted early this morning to approve Senate Bill 205. Final approval of the measure is expected later this week. Information on today’s vote is available at

SB 205 will prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. The bill – which exempts religious organizations – would provide statewide protections. Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Minnesota, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada and the District of Columbia already prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

Currently, 48.5 percent of Maryland’s population live in the four jurisdictions that ban this type of discrimination at the local level – Baltimore City, Montgomery County, Howard County and Prince George’s County. The remaining 51.5 percent of the State’s population lack this protection, said Shannon Avery, chair of the Center’s Committee for Legislative and Political Action.

“Whether or not one faces discrimination should not be an accident of geography,” Avery said. “In giving initial approval to this bill, the Senate is respecting the will of a majority of Marylanders who favor this legislation.”

The bill faces full Senate approval later this week. The House of Delegates approved a similar measure in 1999 by a wide majority. Governor Parris N. Glendening, a strong champion of the legislation, will sign the bill if it passes out of the General Assembly.

The GLCCB is Maryland’s only community center serving the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender communities. The Center is located at 241 West Chase Street in the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore City. Programs and services conducted by the Center are made possible by the efforts of more than 150 volunteers and the generosity of financial donors. For additional information, please visit our website at

Alyson responded to this PR:

Discrimination, in any form, against any individual, should not be tolerated in a progressive society. The GLCCB failure to support inclusion of “gender identity” in the SB205 and HB307 is indicative of systemic bigotry in the gay and lesbian community within the State of Maryland. And, while the transgendered community has NEVER acted or behaved toward those in the LGB community in such a manner, the politically correct NIMBY attitude expressed by this press release is disappointing, if not disgusting. The LGB community should be ashamed of its actions.

Cathy Brennan’s response to that?

Your insistence on misrepresenting the position of the GLCCB is both harmful and sad. You well know that the GLCCB – like other groups across the country – supports a litigation strategy to protect individual on the based of gender. You m[a]y disagree with that strategy, but you cannot honestly state that the GLCCB opposes exclusion [Kat’s 2011 note: “cannot honestly state that [GLCCB] opposes exclusion” would appear to be a typo, but if Brennan actually typed it that way I think it would be the irony of karma, no?  Or perhaps the karma of irony?] for anyone. Your anti-gay rhetoric is divisive and does not further the cause you seek to promote. To see you on the same side as the Family Protection Lobby is disturbing. I find it deeply troubling that you and other transgendered individuals have not only worked against the bill, but have engaged in individual and organizational character assassination. But again, I am confident that almost all members of the community are aware of your misrepresentations.

Alyson’s recounting of history thereafter in a separate response to a different person:

I appreciate your thoughts. However, please consider the following:

First, “gender identity” was included in the 1999 version of the bill. It was Liz Seaton, speaking on behalf of Free State Justice and the gay and lesbian community, who stated that it was OK to delete that language from the bill.

Second, this year when asked to merely mention that the transgender community should be included in the legislation, while they were testifying in favor of LGB protections in the statute, every gay and lesbian organization refused. That is WRONG, unsupportive, and in fact signaling that it is OK to discriminate against the transgendered citizens of Maryland.

I cannot and will not accept bigotry, no matter how you sugar coat it, from those who claim to support the “T” in LGBTI! And yes, next year we’ll be looking to see if the LGB folks will be lobbying for us. I doubt they will even show up. Yet, I hope your crystal ball proves me wrong.

Game, set, match – Alyson’s crystal ball.  Even based on the self-serving rhetoric of the current incarnation of Free State Just Us, none of the incrementalists (or, more accurately, their successors in political interest) made any attempt to go back to Annapolis to deal with trans anything, even to ‘educate’ until 2007 – and by then, Marriage Derangement Syndrome had set in.

Now, lets look at something that preceded the above exhange by a few weeks.  First, another missive from Cathy Brennan that I hope her employer (and its clients) become aware of:

I had to reformat it to fit in this blog post, but that is the entirety of a letter that Der Brennanista got Queer Channel Media to run just as the Maryland Legislature was convening in 2001.

One thing, though…

Did you notice how she started out the letter?  Slamming Queer Channel Media for – in her view – being biased? 

Now, as readers should be well aware, I’m no fan of Queer Channel Media – and in the years after the Maryland political hate crime of 2001, it become insidiously anti-trans under the control of Chris ‘Hewp! Hewp! I’m being wepwessed by trans people who don’t want to be repressed!’ Crain.

However, the article that Brennan refers to was from Dec. 15, 2000…

and here it is (unfortunately, all I have is an old web printout of it, and I formatted the text of it from that; the URL was, but I wasn’t able to find it in the WayBackMachine):

Sorry Cathy, but if there’s any ‘bias’ issue with that piece (and I’m not asserting that it was bias – even though I think the matter of what certain people who should have known – and likely did know – better regarding the inteplay of ‘transgender’ and ‘disability’ should have been explored more in depth) it was in favor of the Brennan-Avery-Seaton pro-delusion side by offering the quotes of both Henry Ford and Liz Seaton in favor of the trans-exclusion while only giving Alyson Meiselman’s voice in opposition (and even part of the quote from her was about the DSM in general, and not the substance of why blanket declarations that trans people are included under “disability” were, in 2000 – as opposed to 1973 or even 1985 – incompetent at best, and flat out fraudulent at worst.)

But I’ve never been one to accuse Maryland’s gays and lesbians of letting facts get in the way of a good fit of transphobia.

Two weeks after the Brennan letter of Jan. 5, her greek chorus appeared in those same pages.  First, Cheryl Cort:

No indication that she has any basis for claiming that Der Brennanista actually is “realistic,” but it gets run anyway.

Oh, but wait, there’s more…

That is the beginning of an extended hissy-fit from now-judge Shannon Avery.

…their sole strategy is to include transgender in the definition of sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination legislation.

Oddly enough, at that time including sexual orientation in the definition of sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination legislationwas the only strategy of transphobes such as Avery.

Their effort is meaningless and they know it.

I gots nine years and eleven months that say she owes trans people in Maryland (and every other jurisdiction that copied her diseased strategy) an apology.

I wonder what sort of kum-bah-yah trans inclusivity there was when those gay-only local ordinances were ramrodded through, eh?

Perhaps the same sort of non-kum, non-bah, non-yah that there was in Minnesota back in the mid 1970s – you know (You obviously do, right? You’re quoting from that NGLTF book which spoke of Minnesota trans history, aren’t ya?), where trans people were left out of the Minneapolis ordinance in 1974 at the behest of a man who went on to help found the Human Rights Campaign Fund (I know, you’re shocked!) but not before he tried to ramrod that same anti-trans (Hey, I’m only following the lead of you civil rights icons.  If you oppose an gay rights bill for any reason, you’re anti-gay; so, if you oppose trans rights for any reason, you must be anti-trans, right?  I hope that trans people who now find themselves faced with having their rights adjudicated by Judge Shannon Avery are aware of this.  No, I’m not trying to get anyone thrown off the bench.  I’m just sayin’….) language through the state legislature – only to have the effort backfire and have the dirty, scummy, scary trans people befriended by a Republican legislator who would do what the ‘liberal’ Democrats would not, namely stand up for trans rights.  And we’re still talking about Minnesota, right?  Where that entire gay rights bill of 1975 died not because of the spat over trans-inclusivity but because of the specter of gay teachers?

Who do you want to believe? Yourself?  Or Endean’s own organization? (Or, how about the next gay rights bill introduced in Minnesota, 1977 H.F. 1176, which didn’t have pro-trans language but did have explicit proto-Briggs anti-gay-teacher language, you know…

A continuing contract may be terminated, effective at the close of the school year, upon any of the following grounds:

(e) Advocacy r promotion in a learning environment of a preference for engaging in sexual relations with persons of a particular gender.

like that?)  And how about these little factoids:

  • Because of that skirmish at the Legislature in 1975, the Minneapolis Ordinance was amended to be trans-inclusive before any further attempts were made to go after state legislation.
  • The other gay rights law in Minnesota at that time, St. Paul’s, was wiped out by Anita Bryant’s minions in 1978.
  • When St. Paul re-enacted an ordinance it was trans-inclusive.
  • When Minnesota finally enacted statewide legislation in 1993, all (well, both) of its city ordinances were already trans-inclusive.

Don’t worry, Shannon.  There’s always a spin-cycle chair available for you at FOX.  But I have no faith that people like Brennan and Avery will ever meet the fate that they deserve (no, not violence – just something equivalent to what trans people in Maryland have faced for the last ten years…you know, like ten years of unemployment.)  After all, Brennan has slithered into the caliber of law practice that I have grave doubts that any trans person (well, any trans woman) would ever even be considered for.  As for Avery?  Well, I’d trust Alyson Meiselman to be a judge – but its Avery that has managed to grab a gavel…

even after being exposed as sophistry-addled, transphobic slimemonger by Alyson in that very same Jan. 19, 2001 edition of Queer Channel Media:


and did I mention that, unlike in the Dec. 15 piece that Der Brennanista claimed was biased against her position, Alyson was not the only pro-reality voice in the LTE pages of Queer Channel Media on Jan. 19?

Now, I have my issues with GLAD.  To the best of my knowledge it still has never hired any trans women.  And, even though – as Jennifer points out – it does pro-trans casework (often successfully), it also is as responsible as anyone or anything for ensuring that gay marriage has steamrolled all other substantive concerns of LGBs (not to mention Ts) over the last decade.

Jennifer was too diplomatic to phrase it this way, but her argument can be summed up thusly: Brennan was full of shit and she either knows it or should know it.

Likewise, Alyson will never phrase the overall situation in such a manner, but I will: It all boils down to gay greed.

It did in 2001.

And it does now.

The diseased deceit exhibited by Brennan and Avery in their tag-team transphobia a decade ago should, by now, have thoroughly disqualified them from any employment even remotely connected to law or policy – yet one of them has a law position that, doubtlessly, no trans person (and certainly no trans woman) was ever even considered for and the other is in the position to pass judgment on people who may be in legal trouble via ‘criminal’ activity that they may only have been involved in because they were legally excludable from employment in Maryland because of the law that she helped con the state into passing (now, I actually don’t know if she’s on the criminal bench, but as an assistant A.G. she represented the state in its efforts to try to keep people from accessing DNA evidence that could possibly exonerate them). 

Matt Foreman, though, got a nice promotion after he shepherded New York’s copy of Maryland’s anti-trans law into existence back in 2002.

What sort of position will Morgan Meneses-Sheets manage to elevate to after she accomplishes the touchy-feely 2011 equivalent of the con that Brennan and Avery pulled off a decade ago?

Well, I’m sure that Pee Wee Solmonese one day will grow tired of his champagne-in-the-membrane, designer executroid leisure lifestyle of energetically having to effectuate a different plastic smile each time he  finds himself unable to avoid explaining away a caviar-stained foobar that the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool passes off, to the working-class public that neither he nor his organization really cares about, as epic plans of gay Napoleonic stature that are worthy of a perpetual series of – or at least thirty-five – ‘thank you may I have another’s from the useless-except-for-one-thing masses.

Some will say that cream rises to the top.

I point out that turds float in punch bowls.

A lot of people who should have known better (and probably did) drank a lot of crab-flavored kool-aid in 2001.

The same organization that served up plenty of it back then is serving it up again – just with a bit of different food coloring.

This time its violet instead of purple – yet the active ingredient, of course, is neither the coloring nor the flavoring.

Lies are still lies.

Bullshit is still bullshit.

Transphobia is still transphobia.

And gay greed is still gay greed.

Gay marriage in Maryland – without the stain of trans equality having to be borne by the gay millionaires in D.C.’s Maryland suburbs – will punch Morgan Meneses-Sheets’ ticket to the big house on Rhode Island Avenue.  I think its time for those of us who bought Liz Seaton’s ticket to HRC, who bought Cathy Brennan’s ticket fake legitimacy, and who bought Shannon Avery’s ticket to the bench – you know, us people who bought those characters’ tickets with ten years of third-class legal status – to punch back.

No, not physically – either with violence or our own gift of purple kool-aid punch (after all, what I’ve pointed to here are the inconveniencies of the reality of history – things which, by their consistent refusal to stand up and face the music for what they did ten years ago, the Brennans and the Averys and the other gay-primacy con artists of Maryland and other states have no use for.)

No, we punch back by refusing to shut up.

To quote that ever-popular, umm…, champion, umm…, of trans-inclusion…

John Aravosis:

 We didn’t get the DADT legislation passed by being nice.

We wouldn’t want to disappoint The John, now would we?

So, if you’re inclined to be nice regarding what the Neo-2001 crowd in Maryland is trying to pull? Don’t.

If you’re currently being nice regarding what the Neo-2001 crowd in Maryland is trying to pull? Stop.

These people fucked us ten years ago – and what they did then was immediately copied by New York and subsequently used by St. Barney to try to erect national anti-trans apartheid in 2007.

If we let them fuck us now, if New York ever bothers to deal with trans-inclusion you can bet that it will be even worse than what Maryland is trying now – and you can bet that in 2033 when 93-year-old St. Barney gets around to proposing a bill to rectify the situation he created by signing off on the gay-only ENDA that got passed in 2017, it will be even more meaningless than anything that the Brennans, the Seatons, the Averys and the Meneses-Sheetses could have come up with in their wettest, greediest, gay-primacy dreams.

We didn’t get the DADT legislation passed by being nice.

If the John says it, it must be true – and it must be obeyed!

68 Responses to Come to Think of it, I’ve Never Seen Morgan Meneses-Sheets and Cathy Brennan in the Same Room at the Same Time

  1. Kathleen says:

    Wow – great post & great history lesson.

    Much to go through here – but – Liz Seaton – an attorney from HRC (at that time) & now an attorney with NCLR – publicly stated that transgender people were never included in the definition of sexual orientation in laws? Knowing full well it wasn’t true given MN & the many places that took the MN definition into their own laws – as far apart as Los Angeles, Ca & Harrisburg, PA – which isn’t very far from Maryland at all.

    Astounding. Either she’s a bad lawyer or a good liar.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Either she’s a bad lawyer or a good liar.

      Or maybe she’s just a bad person, period.

      or maybe she’s just incapable of appreciating irony (where’s Bill Hicks when we need him, eh?) – like the irony of her having made that statement a week before I published a column in the Texas Triangle re-introducing the world to the trans-inclusive 1979 Los Angeles Civil Rights Ordinance

      It seems as though whoever drafted the Los Angeles ordinance in 1979 used the Minneapolis ordinance as a model – which just accentuates the tragedy of how transgendered people were excluded from New York City’s ordinance when it was passed in 1986 because its drafters used the narrow language of Wisconsin’s state statute. The pro-exclusion forces said that they couldn’t include transgendered people.

      The reality, however, is more clear than ever: They simply didn’t want to.

      Another tragedy is how the TG language of the Los Angeles ordinance could have gone unnoticed for 21 years. Obviously I’m not talking about some small town’s ordinance that anyone can be forgiven for not knowing about (and I’d be willing to bet that there are a few out there that have been enacted with no notice whatsoever.)

      But Los Angeles? C’mon. How many queer lawyers are there in L.A.? At least a couple, I’m sure. And how many HRC-oids (and NGLTF-oids, etc.) are there in La La Land? A few, I’m sure. I live in a small town in Minnesota but found a reference to the L.A. ordinance online in a published opinion of the California Court of Appeals.

      To make sure I wasn’t hallucinating, I called the L.A. City Attorney’s Office and had Section 49.71 faxed to me (I’m sure they had better things to do than help a Minnesota Kat with a law review article, but the folks I spoke with were quite helpful nevertheless – and I am indeed grateful.) If I can come up with this gem o’ info, why couldn’t HRC or any of the national queer powerhouses whose paid staffers likely all make more $ than I do?

      And while the Maryland con artists of 2001 were working their Old Hack Magic to pass an anti-trans bill, well-heeled gays who didn’t like being reminded of the past were, well, expressing displeasure at being reminded of the past – and what it said about the present:

      A Frontiers magazine article recently did its best to minimize the significance of my discovery of the ordinance. Among other things, it was noted that “Los Angeles attorneys working in sexual-orientation discrimination law are well aware of the ordinance.”

      Some apparently are – or at least claim to be. However, I have been informed that at least one GLBT rights attorney with a major civil rights organization has thanked a National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) member who let the attorney know about the ordinance – because the attorney didn’t know about it.

      Let’s see… what was the inscription on that statute at Animal House’s fabled Faber College? I believe it was, “Knowledge is good”

      Knowledge is good – except, apparently, when certain people think that they own that knowledge.

      Of course, those who remember this exchange – and know about the L.A. Ordinance – know that a subsequent court decision that I had not been aware of at the time I wrote the first column had held that local gay rights ordinances in CA weren’t enforceable (begging the question of why there was always a bunch of hoopla during the 1990s when CA cities would pass trans-inclusive ordinances – a question never answered).

      I phrased my revelation of the existence of the transgender clause in the Los Angeles Municipal Code’s definition of “sexual orientation” as a Christmas present to TGs in SoCal. Contrary to assertions of some critics, this present was not an empty box. Of course, because of a 1993 court decision apparently pre-empting the city ordinance, the present may not be exactly what I’d hoped it would be. Instead of a pot of gold, it may well be a slowly-maturing bond. Yes, although Delaney v. Superior Fast Freight may negate it being of special immediate value to L.A. TGs, there is no mistaking that it is valuable to all transgendered people.

      And there is also no mistaking the disingenuousness behind some of the criticism both of my column and of the press release by NTAC (the only national organization currently working to achieve federal transgender employment anti-discrimination protection.)

      At least one California attorney, Shannon Minter, a transsexual and co-author of a recent book on transgender equality legislation (a book which didn’t mention the L.A. ordinance), has expressed alarm over the fact that the L.A. ordinance was brought to public attention at all, writing “The issue about whether local ordinances have any enforceability in CA is very sensitive, legally speaking, so gay lawyers have tried to avoid highlighting the fact that the sexual orientation provision in the LA ordinance (which includes the transgender-protective language) was held to be unenforceable by an appellate court in CA.”

      This seems to be the exact same mindset that prompted untold numbers of closeted transsexuals outside of Texas to pillory Phyllis Frye for daring to expose the injustice of Littleton v. Prange by publicizing the legal lesbian marriage of Jessica and Robin Wicks: Don’t publicize it and maybe no one else will notice. I may have missed the 1993 case when I was doing research on my article – but I freely admit that I was only looking to verify the existence of the ordinances transgender language (the fact that L.A. has an ordinance is listed on HRC’s website isn’t it?).

      And yet for at least two years after that, HRC – in its ‘WorkNet’ – continued to list Los Angeles as having a gay rights ordinance but one that was not trans-inclusive.

      Gays would never engage in disinformation to de-legitimze trans political vailability would they?

      Scroll back up above and read what Liz Seaton had to say – and then factor in that after setting up the non-inclusive precedent for Maryland in 1999 she had moved on from Free State Just Us to the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool.

      Now, refer to something I wrote in a separate portion of my 2000-01 discussion about the L.A. ordinance:

      Transgender history is de-emphasized, or flat-out hidden, by those who have excluded us from our own movement and then we’re criticized for daring to speak of things which we learn exist in some book of forbidden civil rights knowledge?

      It is not transgendered people who need to be criticized.

      The revealing of the existence of the L.A. ordinance’s trans-inclusivity may have given some people what may prove to be false hope (although, ultimately, the jury is still out on that.) However, the reaction to it by those who claim to have known about it but who have never seen fit to ensure that there was any mention of it in those lists of GLBT laws put out by every organization claiming to work for GLBT rights accentuates how so many transgendered people have come to be in the situation that those in Los Angeles – and most other areas of the country that have removed homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality as legitimate bases for employment discrimination – may be in: they’re on the outside looking in at gays and lesbians feasting on an equality meal paid for with the blood and sweat of all believers in equality (including the transgendered), the down payment for which was paid with the blood of those transgendered people who threw the first stones at Stonewall.

      I’ve said this many times here and I know many of you do not believe me when I say it: I truly do not enjoy having to rip into gays and lesbians over trans-inclusion (or the lack there of.) But, history has conclusively proven that if we do not cause a stink, we will not be included. Now, it appears that if we do not cause a stink, instances of where we have been included will be ignored – and when they’re brought back into the light of day, their historical significance will be minimized and the messengers… well, you know what happens to the messengers.

      2011 – its so 2001.

  2. Alyson Meiselman says:

    I read this post. As I did so, I began to cry. So much water has passed under the bridge, and, yet, there has never been any effort or attempt to fix the wrongs, the lies, the deceit, the back-stabbing of “political correctness,” or, even a simple apology. And, for them, the beat goes on. For me, “after all the changes, we are more or less the same … for me … the fighter still remains.”

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Some people ask me why I chose to put myself through the abuse of getting a Ph.D. in History after experiencing law school.

      Those who forget the past…

      …will look at what’s going on with Free State Just Us now and believe what they and their apologists have to say.

  3. genderqueer riff raff says:

    First of all thank you Katrina , i am glad you are on the side of true inclusive non incremental Trans Justice. We are up against huge forces , of mis informed Equality inc members – too many Equality Inc groups engage in intense Dis -information with their members , the members are way too trusting. We had embezzlers here in my state when our Inclusive Legislation passed, it only passed because our Lobbiest was intransigent as was the Trans community , a small but admament group , it took a lot of legislative brinksmanship. ALL i can say is NO bill is better than a bad bill – nobdoy comes back for anybody, whats the difference really between a butch dyke in the bathroom , an effeminate man in the mans room – vs. a transgender person in the bathroom of their identified gender ? Its same memes of predator vs pray. We are the prey.
    The same lies are being pushed. Its very good the covers are being pulled on any so called Equality group that would settle for bad bills.

    As you say its not that hard to get the language , to know what is in the bills. – oh that is a sock puppet name if i ever read one ! “mogan menses sheets?” gimme a break.

  4. genderqueer riff raff says:

    sorry about my typos, truly sorry – i may not be able to write well , but so be it, my writing does not diminish the realities of your post or the passion WE who want inclusive legislation demand.
    ** I can spell out this much NO bill is better than a non inclusive bill – and thank you again for your diligence it is greatly appreciated.

  5. […] Tom was referring to Cathy Brennan-defined North Maryland.  And he isn’t laying everything at the feet of its equivalent of Free State Just Us: I […]

  6. Cathy Brennan says:

    Katrina – I’m flattered to see you apparently have been obsessed with me for years! You are a special case. Good luck to you.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      No more so than I’m obsessed with any other deceitful transphobe who fucks up the legal environment that trans people have to live in.

      You, your conjoined political twin, Roger Ormrod, Jesse Helms, Bill Armstrong, Phil Hardberger, Donald Allegrucci….

      You’re all heads of the same hydra.

  7. Cathy Brennan says:

    Katrina – I have reached out to you before, and you have never talked to me. You are a coward who sits behind a computer and types up whiny drivel. You are a pitiful loser. Good luck with that.

    I am like Jesse Helms? Sister, please. Once again, if you actually want to have a discussion, you can email me. Otherwise, keep pounding sand.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Opposing gay-only laws because they exclude trans people is anti-gay but opposing trans-inclusion is somehow not anti-trans?

      You’re a worthless con artist who can’t handle when your bullshit is proven to be such.

  8. Cathy Brennan says:

    Yes, that’s right. Of course, you are right. You are ridiculous if you think I – a volunteer – is part of some gay political elite that is out to screw trans folks. Once again, you have never once accepted my offers to chat. Is that because reality would interfere with your theory about me? In case you didn’t notice, the 2001 bill was an administration bill. Do you really think we are that powerful? You’re out of touch with reality. Maybe try talking to humans. Or, just keep blogging. That’s been super effective. You’re a hero.

  9. Cathy Brennan says:

    But I do have a question – what does “Cathy Brennan’s ticket fake legitimacy” mean? Did I win something?

    • Kathleen says:

      Well, you won employment and public accomadation protections while actively working to keep others from having equity with you in that bill.

      I’d call that a prize. You certainly thought it had some value, if your actions are any indication.

      I’d suggest that Katrina’s fascination with you (in best analogy section tradition) is like Dan Savage’s fascination with:

  10. Cathy Brennan says:

    Aww that’s sweet. Another anonymous commenter becomes brave. Yes, I am surely a piece of shit. Yes, anonymous commenter. I see. I dearly would love to invite you and Katrina over for tea.

    In any event, back in reality, there is an emerging body of case law and theory that uses Title VII to obtain protections for trans folks. See Transgender Legal Advocacy: What Do Feminist Legal Theories Have to Offer?, Demoya R. Gordon, 97 Calif. L. Rev. 1719. We need to work with everything we’ve got, and we need to work in reality. If stomping your feet like big babies makes you happy, have at it. Slainte.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Expecting you to put up or shut up utilizing Maryland state law regarding the decade following your insane claims that trans people in Maryland should settle for crumbs of Connecticut and Massachusetts state law is “stomping your feet like big babies”?

      How do you ever win any cases? Do you rig the docket to where they’re all in front of either Shannon Avery or her partner?

    • Kathleen says:

      I try to avoid frothy mixtures with my tea.

      Seriously – why would I ever want to meet you? I know you think there’s value in that – but – very few trans people would.

      Slainte – yeah – I toasted that with one of the Sands boys way back when. You don’t know brave.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Personally, I just prefer quoting people’s own words from a decade ago back to them – and then seeing how long they can speak in circles before admitting that the legal purple-kool-aid theory they were pushing in order to get what they wanted while convincing the people who the bill was othering that said bill was actually going to help them too was, and is, a toxic pile of sludge.

        Maryland state law citations anyone?

        Maryland state law citations anyone?

        Maryland state law citations anyone?

        Maryland state law citations anyone?

        Of course not.

  11. Cathy Brennan says:

    Here’s language from a case where the plaintiff lost (but supports the Title VII litigation strategy: “In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 251, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989), the Supreme Court explained that gender stereotyping is direct evidence of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Relying on Hopkins, in Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000), we held, in the context of the Gender Motivated Violence Act, that transgender [**3] individuals may state viable sex discrimination claims on the theory that the perpetrator was motivated by the victim’s real or perceived non-conformance to socially-constructed gender norms. After Hopkins and Schwenk, it is unlawful to discriminate against a transgender (or any other) person because he or she does not behave in accordance with an employer’s expectations for men or women. Accord Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566, 575 (6th Cir. 2004). Thus, Kastl states a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII on the theory that impermissible gender stereotypes were a motivating factor in MCCCD’s actions against her.” Kastl v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009).

    • Katrina Rose says:

      For all first year law students out there who might be following this thread, what we’re seeing is an overly-privileged, under-knowleged con artist who doesn’t know when to give up.

      For, you see: Maryland is in the Fourth Circuit, while Washington and Arizona are in the Ninth and Ohio is in the Sixth.

      In first year legal argumentation, the grade that Ms. Brennan would get for that would be ‘F’ for terminal non-responsiveness.

  12. Cathy Brennan says:

    Good language in a very bad case: “A number of courts have relied on Price Waterhouse to expressly recognize a Title VII cause of action for discrimination based on an employee’s failure to conform to stereotypical gender norms. See, e.g., Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257, 262-64 (3d Cir. 2001); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., 256 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir. 2001); Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 261 n.4 (1st Cir. 1999); Doe by Doe v. City of Belleville, 119 F.3d 563, 580-81 (7th Cir. 1997), vacated on other grounds, 523 U.S. 1001, 118 S. Ct. 1183, 140 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1998). In fact, the Sixth Circuit recently relied on Price Waterhouse to recognize a cause of action for a transsexual claiming protection under [**19] Title VII. See Smith, 378 F.3d at 572-75; Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 737 (6th Cir. 2005). In so holding, the court explained that just as an employer who discriminates against women for not wearing dresses or makeup is engaging in sex discrimination under the rationale of Price Waterhouse, “employers who discriminate against men because they do wear dresses and makeup, or otherwise act femininely, are also engaging in sex discrimination, because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim’s sex.” Smith, 378 F.3d at 574; cf. Rosa v. Park W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213, 215-16 (1st Cir. 2000) (concluding a transsexual could state a claim for sex discrimination under Equal Credit Opportunity Act by analogizing to Title VII); [*1224] Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000) (relying on Title VII case law to conclude that violence against a transsexual was violence because of gender under the Gender Motivated Violence Act).

    This court need not decide whether discrimination based on an employee’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes always constitutes discrimination “because of sex” and we need not decide whether such a claim may extend Title VII [**20] protection to transsexuals who act and appear as a member of the opposite sex. Instead, because we conclude Etsitty has not presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether UTA’s stated motivation for her termination is pretextual, we assume, without deciding, that such a claim is available and that Etsitty has satisfied her prima facie burden.” Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Circ. 2007).

  13. Cathy Brennan says:

    Very good case – Glenn v. Brumby, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ga. 2010): This action is not the first in which an individual with GID has relied upon the sex-stereotyping theory of Price Waterhouse to assert a claim resulting from an [*1298] adverse employment action. Several courts have recognized that a transsexual who alleges that he or she was subject to an adverse employment action for failing to conform to sex stereotypes concerning how an individual of that biological sex should look and behave have sufficiently plead claims of sex stereotyping [**31] and gender discrimination. See Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566, 572, 575 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Sex stereotyping based upon a person’s gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination, irrespective of the cause of that behavior . . .”); Kastl v. Maricopa Co. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492, 493 (9th Cir. 2009) (“it is unlawful to discriminate against a transgender (or any other) person because he or she does not behave in accordance with an employer’s expectations for men or women . . . . Thus, [plaintiff] states a prima facie case of gender discrimination . . .”); Creed v. Family Express Corp., No. 3:06-CV-465RM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237, 2009 WL 35237 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2009) (transgender plaintiff “may succeed on her sex stereotyping claim if she can present sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer intentional discrimination”); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 308 (D.D.C. 2008) (“In refusing to hire [plaintiff] because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker’s sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear . . . [defendant] violated Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination.”); Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Group, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653, 667-68 (S.D. Tex. 2008) [**32] (plaintiff, a transsexual male, “has stated a legally viable claim of discrimination as a male who failed to conform with traditional male stereotypes”). The Tenth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that such a claim is available, but determined that Plaintiff could not demonstrate that the stated reason for her termination was pretext. Etsitty, 502 F.3d at 1224.

    As noted, Plaintiff has properly stated a violation of the Equal Protection Clause based upon sex stereotyping. Such a claim is subject to intermediate scrutiny review. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff’s desire to come to work dressed as a woman did not comport with how Defendant Brumby believed a biological male should act and that served as a basis for her termination. The record also indicated that Brumby was concerned about negative reactions from others, including state legislators, if he allowed Plaintiff to do so. Neither is an “exceedingly [**54] persuasive justification,” and neither explanation is sufficient to survive intermediate scrutiny review. See Hogan, 458 U.S. at 724. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for her claim of discrimination based on sex. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [46] is GRANTED as to her First Claim for Relief, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement as to that claim is DENIED.

    The point of these posts, of course, is that Title VII is a remedy folks can pursue – which, although not as good as a law on point, is, in fact, an avenue for redress. But remember, there’s no law against firing someone for being a jerk, or refusing to make someone a judge because they are unbearable. Have a good night!

  14. Cathy Brennan says:

    Katrina, I am not sure where you went to law school, or where you practice, but you should know that courts look to other circuits when they lack precedent. How do you think case law works?

    No trick or con – I assume people know how to read, and can draw their own conclusions. I just hate stacked decks, even if no one actually pays attention to it – or you.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I can read.

      But before I can read anything, it has to exist.

      Here’s something I can’t read because it doesn’t exist: Maryland state law in any form that anyone has anything remotely close to ready access for employers and proprietors (not to mention victims or other members of the general public)that bears out the fairy tale that you expected in 2001 (and, apparently, expect now as well) to accept in lieu of the same level of statutory coverage that gays and lesbians demanded for themselves.

      Here’s something I can read: A ton of easily accessible references to Maryland state law that tells employers and proprietors that they can’t discriminate against gays and lesbians.

  15. Kathleen says:

    “I just hate stacked decks,”

    tell that to the trans folk who you helped stack the deck against.

    This is part of your legacy – why not embrace it? You worked so hard to insure trans people were lessor than you under the law. Take so credit where it’s due.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Some say ‘stacked decks.’

      Others say ‘the historical record.’

      In 1996, Delegates Sharon Grosfeld and Salima Siler Marriott sponsored HB 325, a bill to prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity. The bill defined “gender identity” as “having or being perceived as having a self-image, expression, or identity not traditionally associated with one’s sex at birth.” Commerce and Government Matters heard testimony on the bill on March 7, and gave the bill an unfavorable report on March 11.

      Delegate Grosfeld, a strong supporter of civil rights protections for the transgendered
      community, indicated that she did not believe that it would be a useful strategy to introduce a separate gender identity bill in the future, because if one introduces both a sexual orientation bill and a gender identity bill, they run the risk of canceling each other out. “It undermines the other bill (the Anti-Discrimination Act),” she said. “It doesn’t help either cause.”

      Since 1990, Delegate Sheila Hixson, D-Montgomery, has introduced legislation to ban
      discrimination based on sexual orientation. Prior to 1999, the bill died each year in committee. In 1999, numerous sponsors, backed by the strong support of Democratic Governor Parris N. Glendening, introduced HB 315, a bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations. HB 315, cross-filed with SB 138, offered a broad definition of sexual orientation, defining it as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality,” as well as “having or being perceived as having a self-image, expression, or identity not traditionally associated with one’s sex at birth,” a definition intended to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender identity. The House Judiciary Committee, and later the House of Delegates, approved HB 315 without the definition intended to prohibit discrimination
      based on gender identity, but the bill died in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee without ever coming up for a vote. Even though the version of the bill passed by the House removed the gender identity protections, Senate committee opponents used the definition of the bill that would have covered gender identity for their own political gain.

      Ten states and the District of Columbia prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Of these, only the Minnesota statute explicitly includes transgendered and transsexual people as well as lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In the absence of evidence of an explicit intention to include transsexual people in state laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, courts have interpreted these laws narrowly.

      No legislation has ever been introduced in the state of Maryland that would expand the definition of sex to include gender identity. Article 49B, the statute that prohibits discrimination based on a variety of characteristics, uses the term sex rather than gender. Sex has been applied by Maryland courts to mean biological sex – male or female.

      Employment discrimination cases brought under state laws prohibiting sex discrimination have been unsuccessful. Some state courts have indicated a willingness to depart from Title VII precedents and to interpret state and local sex discrimination laws to include transsexual people.

      Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, said that the Commission has never been asked to accept a complaint from a transgendered individual who claimed that an adverse action had been taken against him or her. The authors asked Hughes whether the Commission would accept a complaint of sex discrimination from an “effeminate man, a butch woman, or any person who identified as transgendered” who has an adverse action taken against them not because of sexual orientation, but because of gender stereotyping. Hughes said the Commission had no policy on this issue, and would determine whether it would accept such a complaint if and when the case presented itself. She said that a decision to accept a case
      like this would require a significant commitment of the Commission’s resources, as the issue would almost certainly be litigated. She also said that if the Commission promulgated a policy on this issue, it would come from either the Commission’s Commissioners or from herself and Henry Ford

      Article 49B, the statute enforced by the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, defines “disability”as “any physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement which is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness including epilepsy, and which shall include, but not be limited to, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical coordination, blindness or visual impairment, deafness or hearing impairment, muteness or speech impediment or physical reliance on a seeing eye dog, wheelchair, or other remedial appliance or device; and any mental impairment or deficiency as, but not limited to, retardation or such other which may have necessitated remedial or special education and related services.”

      According to Henry Ford, executive director of the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, the MCHR has accepted one complaint from a transsexual individual under disability. Mr. Ford’s assertion that the Commission already has the power to accept cases of discrimination against transsexuals allowed some supportive legislators to agree to the deletion of the transgendered-inclusive definition in HB 315.

      According to Delegate Grosfeld, Ford’s assertion that the Commission already had jurisdiction over complaints filed by transsexuals gave supporters of HB 315 the assurance they needed to support a deletion of the second definition of sexual orientation intended to protect individuals from discrimination based on gender variance.

      “If it is included in practice, that can be enough,” said Delegate Grosfeld. “Members of the transgendered community may feel differently, but it seemed very clear to all of us (on the House Judiciary Committee who supported the legislation) that at least from position of the Human Relations Commission they could and have dealt with these cases.”

      (footnotes omitted)

      And, yet, in March of 2001, someone – I won’t mention who, but I think we all know who – was being a sophistric slimeball on at least one e-mail list (I presume more) by declaring that trans people (and their supporters) who wouldn’t accept this now-proven-to-be-worthless Maryland future for trans people to be “anti gay.”

      • Kathleen says:

        Hey – why push for a marriage equality bill if some legal theory might bear fruit on that issue twenty thirty or fourty years from now?

        Ah – because people don’t have those rights now and inclusion in legislation will change this now?

        Exactly why you’re an anti trans bigot, Brennan. You felt the discrimination we face didn’t matter as much as that which you faced. You need to own that & the effects it had on so many lives.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Gee Kathleen, don’t you know anything?

        Our lives don’t matter.

  16. Katrina Rose says:

    Cathy Brennan David, with all due respect, no one in the broader community has a working knowledge of “gender expression” to create a loophole. This is a conversation that only people in the LGBTQ political community have. Usually, bigots just see a fag or a dyke. That’s why you have real or perceived language in the Maryland bill. That said, again, I would think in 2011 you should have a bill that includes public accommodations, and it would be better all around to have transinclusive anti-discrimination laws. But EqMD may have very good strategic reasons why it is not included; if so, it should be able to articulate them. Also, just in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the world isn’t perfect.

    Someone who can’t produce any evidence that the grand plan that she expected trans people to be satisfied with in 2001 has in any way worked within the framework of Maryland state law in the ten years since is making demands of people regarding strategy in 2011?

    “[N]o one in the broader community has a working knowledge of ‘gender expression’ to create a loophole,” yet somehow the “broader” trans community in Maryland (including – in fact, particularly – those with no legal or political training) is expected to know enough about the intricacies of multi-jurisdictional administrative law technicalities to overcome high-dollar gay political deceit?

  17. […] in the comments at “Come to Think of it, I’ve Never Seen Morgan Meneses-Sheets and Cathy Brennan in the Same Room at t…,” Maryland transphobia’s most obnoxious apologist crawls out from under her rock of […]

  18. […] in the comments at “Come to Think of it, I’ve Never Seen Morgan Meneses-Sheets and Cathy Brennan in the Same Room at t…,” Maryland transphobia’s most obnoxious apologist crawls out from under her rock of […]

  19. laughriotgirl says:

    Is poorly used snark something they teach in law school? Or is it that the sound that an over-privileged cis woman makes when her panties are in a knot?

  20. laughriotgirl says:

    Although, of the three, I think Liz “trans on demand” Seaton needs to be specially called out.

  21. friday jones says:

    Calling Kat a “coward hiding behind a computer” because she’s posting her words in a place where everybody can read them and refuses to go offline with you to some quiet spot where no one can read what either one of you are saying is a form of Bizarro Logic. In that spirit, Ms. Brennan, let me say that “You am great ally!”

  22. transgriot says:

    Ally? Please…

  23. […] “Hey Cathy Brennan, I just quoted what you sad 10 years ago and I didn’t just quote it in context, I quoted it in full and with all of the other items that it appeared next to – and, oh by the way, nothing about what you said was true about trans law in Maryland was true then and nothing has since come true” is met with “I just hate stacked decks.” […]

  24. […] “Hey Cathy Brennan, I just quoted what you said 10 years ago and I didn’t just quote it in context, I quoted it in full and with all of the other items that it appeared next to – and, oh by the way, nothing about what you said was true about trans law in Maryland was true then and nothing has since come true” is met with “I just hate stacked decks.” […]

  25. […] couldn’t Yusef have at least pretended to be a journalist and asked Brennan why it is that there’s a need for a trans-specific bill in Maryland in the first place?  Or what her position was about how trans-inclusive Maryland law already was in 2001 and how many […]

  26. […] If one of the Bella Abzug-era gay-only Civil Rights Act Amendment proposals had become law, federal law would give everything to gays and nothing to trans people (you know, kinda sorta the way that Maryland state law ended up under the 2001 law that was championed by people like Cathy Brennan, who – as those of us who refuse to be bullied into removing history from our brains – branded as “anti-gay” supporters of gay rights who took the principled position of oppo…?) […]

  27. […] Remember that Cathy Brennan declared that if you opposed the 2001 gay-only bill specificaly because you wanted a legitimate, trans-inclusive …! […]

  28. […] Remember that Cathy Brennan declared that if you opposed the 2001 gay-only bill specificaly because you wanted a legitimate, trans-inclusive …! […]

  29. […] a principled, pro-trans stand against the separate-and-unequal bill was “anti-gay”; having the temerity to recount her history of political transphobia amounts to stacking the deck aga…) – is also one of the loudest, most obnoxious mouths in support of […]

  30. […] 2001: Connecticut’s human relations commission, for example, recently issued a ruling that transgendered individuals – which includes a broad range of people such as the effeminate man, the masculine woman, and the person who has undergone sex-reassignment surgery – are covered by Connecticut law that prohibits dicscrimination on the basis of sex/gender. […]

  31. […] thing Illinois in 2005 wasn’t Maryland in 2001 or 2011, eh […]

  32. […] has probably heard CRG’s rhetoric before, given that she is an out lesbian attorney who has been actively involved in the activism surrounding trans rights in Maryland.  Elizabeth Hungerford is listed as a lawyer and lesbian activist in Massachusetts, and should be […]

  33. […] victimhood (that whole deal of claiming that being presented with your own words in context is a “stacked deck” probably didn’t even fly within the trans-exterminationist set, eh?). […]

  34. […] it, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Bill Kristol and either of the exterminationism twins in the same room at the same time either, but I digress.)  We here in the real world are, after all, still awaiting citations to […]

  35. […] mandatory authority in Alabama, Georgia and Florida, and (2) is as irrelevant to the operation of Maryland state statutory anti-discrimination law as Schwenk v. Hartford, et. al. are – insofar as its delineation of a federal constitutional […]

  36. […] the head-exploding among trans-exterminationists (from Maryland and […]

  37. […] I’ve never seen her in the same room at the same time with…. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

  38. […] I’ve never seen the two of them together in the same room at the same time. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

  39. […] Tom was referring to Cathy Brennan-defined North Maryland.  And he isn’t laying everything at the feet of its equivalent of Free State Just Us: I […]

  40. […] I’m not sure what is more hilarious – the Napoleon/Bokassa-esque group-self-crowning into the Empire O’ Martyrdom that bugvomit (or whoever  is engaging in the desecration of Niemöller’s memory – not to mention the memory of six million Jews – under the sad nom de transphobique “An Anonymous Woman” (actually named “Vic” perhaps?)) OR, given that bugvomit is involved, the usual level of factual inaccuracy, here re: Raymond (whereas usually the subject is Maryland state sex discrimination law.) […]

  41. […] Cathy, one of the EQMD’s facebook admins initially attempted to claim that trans people didn’t need protection as we were already protected. This is, of course a lie – just as it was when she claimed that trans people didn’t need to be protected in 2001. This link has a ton of material (and drama), but if you scroll through, you can see that Cathy engaged in the same type of behavior any time trans rights have been brought up in the past –… […]

  42. […] ‘retired’ physician, prior to giving thanks to Free State Just Us-ers Dan Furmansky and Morgan Menesses-Sheets, […]

  43. Howdy are using WordPress for your site platform?
    I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and set
    up my own. Do you need any html coding knowledge to make your own blog?

    Any help would be really appreciated!

  44. […] Come to Think of it, I’ve Never Seen Morgan Meneses-Sheets and Cathy Brennan in the Same Room at t… […]

  45. […] employment decisions who have the mentality of Janice Raymond, Bev Jo Von Dohre, Kim Mills, and a certain disreputable cis female Maryland lawyer isn’t worth What Used to be The Advocate’s time and […]

  46. […] Brennan, bigots and haters come in all shapes and sexual orentation. Even cisgender lesbian Shills. Just saying. […]

  47. Ԝow! Finally I got a weeb site frοm where I be abke to genuinely obtain useful facts regarding my
    ѕtuԁy and knowleԁge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: