Questions for the Defenders of Brennan and Hungerford

Answer the following questions ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – no weasel wording or qualifier answers, just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no (this is the digital age after all) – based on law as it was at the time the court in question decided the case in question, not as law might be now (e.g., Iowa after it enacted a trans-inclusive civil rights law) or how you would like the law to be (e.g., any two unmarried adults should be able to get married irrespective of sex) or how things have never been (e.g., Cathy Brennan’s lysergic theories of trans-inclusion under Maryland statutory anti-discrimination law) or otherwise how things might be if you were allowed to make use of your own personal moving-goalpost lexicon.

Was Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W. 717 (Minn. 2001), rightly decided?

Was M.T. v. J.T., 355 A.2d 204 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1976), rightly decided?

Was Sommers v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 337 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 1983), rightly decided?

Was Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977), rightly decided?

Was Doe v. City of Minneapolis, No. C2-02-817, 2002 Minn. App. LEXIS 1388 (Minn. App. Dec. 17, 2002), rightly decided?

Was In re Ladrach, 513 N.E.2d 828 (Ohio Prob. Ct., Stark Co. 1987), rightly decided?

Was Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007), rightly decided?

Was In re Heilig, 816 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003), rightly decided?

Was Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Group, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653 (S.D. Tex. 2008), rightly decided?

Was Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1999, pet. denied), rightly decided?

Was, as NCLR asserts, the end result of the Kantaras v. Kantaras case a “victory”?

Was Pierre v. Pierre, 898 So. 2d 419 (La. Ct. App. 2004), rightly decided?

10 Responses to Questions for the Defenders of Brennan and Hungerford

  1. Oh Kat… didn’t you realize that fact based inquiries are just the derailing tactics of someone used to relying on her unexamined male privilege?

    To answer the above questions though:

    No.

    Yes, on the wrong grounds, I would settle,at my least generous, on the New Mexico Model for determining legal gender and thus sex.

    No, cissexist attitudes cause other people to believe that trans persons are incapable of professionally carrying out even the most basic of tasks, and are, inherently, disabling.

    No, cissexist definition of ‘sex’ is used by the court in disregard of medical evidence. Yes, but I might be reading it wrong; it doesn’t appear John Doe had at any point attempted to use a bathroom corresponding with his identified gender, just that he viewed the absence of a unisex bathroom as prima facie constructive dismissal. (If there are any facts of the case I’m overlooking, let me know.)

    No.

    No, surgery should not be a condition of employement and Etsitty was fired for what her employer considered to be her legal sex.

    No, among other reasons, the court’s decision is in willful blindness of full faith and credit. Social contracts are not limited to the borders of a state.

    No, and wow I thought the current medical model for trans treatment was bad.

    No… nothing good can come of Dr. Phil’s involvement in this legally heterosexual marriage or any marriage, or any gathering of more than two people… or body surfing.

    Yes.

  2. […] of the very simple questions that remain unanswered by the exterminationism twins and their […]

  3. […] still no one from the Extermination Twins camp willing to address the actual application of trans law in real life as it is lived in the real world. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

  4. […] Supreme Court’s decision in Goins v. West Group (one of the trans judicial cases that neither Cathy Brennan nor Elizabeth Hungerford nor any of their apologists will tell those who would be affected by the Brennan-Hungerford exterminationism manifesto should it be […]

  5. […] Supreme Court’s decision in Goins v. West Group (one of the trans judicial cases that neither Cathy Brennan nor Elizabeth Hungerford nor any of their apologists will tell those who would be affected by the Brennan-Hungerford exterminationism manifesto should it be […]

  6. […] Supreme Court’s decision in Goins v. West Group (one of the trans judicial cases that neither Cathy Brennan nor Elizabeth Hungerford nor any of their apologists will tell those who would be affected by the Brennan-Hungerford exterminationism manifesto should it be […]

  7. […] Five weeks and none of the trans-exterminationists or their defenders have the courage to address the realities of trans law. […]

  8. […] Five weeks and none of the trans-exterminationists or their defenders have the courage to address the realities of trans law. […]

  9. […] upon a time a surprisingly-direct answer to a thirteenth question (after refusing to address the first twelve) was suggestive of a post-op transsexual woman being regarded as a the woman that she […]

  10. It’s remarkable that my favorite blogtroll, Cathy Brennan, has sustained silence for so long on such a tempting target, when a person with such gifts as a legal analyst and in-depth knowledge of legal issues regarding gender discrimination should be able to respond to this list within minutes…

    “Remarkable”, that is, in the sense that it is worthy of note.

    “Remarkable” otherwise? Obviously not; it’s par for the course.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: