In the comments section at radfemshlub we find this gem:
Sounds to me like someone either (a) is a disingenuous sack of shit; (b) is cut from the Piers Fletcher-Dervish attorney comteptence cloth; (c) bought a law degree off of EBay; or (d) some combination thereof.
Let’s go through this point by point, shall we?
The trans community’s response to this submission has been overwhelmingly misrepresentative of the arguments Cathy Brennan and I put forth in the submission to the UN.
As misrepresentative as the implication that any current trans-inclusive law has ever resulted in any harm to any non-trans woman beyond the howwibul, howwibul, howwibul, howwibul, howwibul, howwibul, howwibul indignity of certain females, not just those of christofascist extraction but also those infected with Janice Raymond’s Disease, actually having to compete for employment on a level playing field with women of transsexual history?
Entitlement to sex-segregated spaces on the basis of ‘gender identity’ discrimination refers specifically to civil rights causes of action. This may be a difficult distinction for the non-lawyer to make, however, we do not address criminal searches & seizures, aka ‘panty checks,’ per the Fourth Amendment–which applies to government actors.
Forgive me, but I should have added two extra choices above – such as (aa) having obtained her law degree from a Cracker Jack box and (bb) under the ever-so-generous assumption that she ever did set foot inside of a law school, skipped the criminal law class session that went over the law of trespass in order to organize a protest against the school ‘s administration to demand that Alix Dobkin be hired to teach a seminar on how to set Corbett v. Corbett to music.
The letter does not express opposition to ‘gender identity’ discrimination laws in the contexts of employment, housing, education, or any area except sex-segregated accommodations. All persons- including trans identified persons- retain access to the bathroom assigned to their birth-sex (/reproductive capacity).
First, I’ll quote Valerie Keefe: “[Hungerford] constructs her comment in such a way that cissexistly constructs trans women as not-women. She is asking women to be exposed to men and isolated from women and then doesn’t think about how unsafe that is.” While Keefe’s comment actually was about a Brennan-Hungerford defender at Bilerico, it applies here as well as anything I could say (given that Hungerford is – pathetically – defending herself and her ilk.)
‘Gender identity’ permits claims of discrimination by people seeking access to sex-segregated spaces solely on the basis of masculine/feminine expression, appearance, identity, or behavior. Our argument clearly identifies the need for “duration [and] medical documentation” of ‘gender identity’ in civil rights causes of action that claim discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity.’ This is in no way a denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons.
Except, of course, that in every way imaginable – and in every manner that you claim that Hungerford claims that she is not doing so – she and the trans-exterminationists are advocating a legally-mandated, trans-othering permanence.
I wonder if all of the Quisling’s sycophants who accused me of hyperbole when I derided the genital-inspection version of ENDA – you know, the one who the Quisling’s sycophants claimed that wouldn’t require genital inspection even though there, of course, is no other way to implement what I’ll now refer to as the Frank-Brennan-Hungerford trans-apartheid standard – will see the connection between Brennand and Hungerford and St. Barney:
From Roll Call:
[T]he whip count on ENDA, which Obama also backs, is entering its fifth week. The effort has most recently focused on rechecking support among Members thought to be more comfortable with the legislation than politically imperiled moderates who have raised most of the concerns, one source familiar with the effort said. That, the source said, bodes well for its progress. But many Members remain officially undecided and have quietly voiced frustrations about the prospect of taking a tough vote that they see as a distraction from an agenda focused on job creation.“It seems to run contrary to what the Speaker said a few months back about focusing on jobs and moving away from these controversial items,” one senior Democratic aide said. “Anything that’s not specifically tied to keeping the economy going raises red flags for folks.”
But Frank said that he is optimistic about the vote count and that transgender protections will remain in the bill.
“There’s no chance of doing it without it,” he said of the transgender protections.
Frank said he’s told wavering Democrats that “the principle is the same. It’s discrimination.”
He said concessions were made in the drafting of the language to address moderates’ concerns. For instance, Frank said, transgender people with “one set of genitals” would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.
And, Frank said, they also would have to have a “consistent gender presentation” in order to be able to sue for discrimination.
“They can’t sit there with a full beard and a dress,” Frank said.
Actually, that last bit is reaonable.
But about that bathroom issue.
Frank said, transgender people with “one set of genitals” would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.
Will lesbians be allowed to use the women’s restroom when looking like this?
And if so, will it be before or after their genitals are inspected?
This is all about demonizing trans women out of the workplace even with an ENDA on the books.
Under what St. Barney is saying – and I can’t quote the bill language because he and HRC’s acolyte, Gramma Frumpp, consider it to be forbidden knowledge – no transsexual, be it pre-op or post-op will ever be able to refuse a genital inspection. Moreover, who will be the prime target? Not simply trans women, but trans women who are beginning to transition or are presumed to have ‘merely’ begin to transition.
What will be the ‘reasonable accommodation’?
And who will have to make it?
Here’s a hint: Employers won’t have to do anything that they don’t have to do now – and the person beginning her transition (and I don’t want to be read as ignoring FTMs; this will hit them as well, but we all know who the gay rights industry is most wiling to get be driven from the workplace: any transsexual woman not named Mara Keisling or Allyson Robinson) or who is forcibly outed as being pre-op will have to make an accommodation: namely, packing up her things and heading to the unemployment office.
Sound reasonable to you?
Don’t tell me that the Gramma Frumpp-St. Barney ENDA won’t allow – or perhaps even mandate – such an outcome…
unless, of course, you have the Gramma Frumpp-St. Barney ENDA language in hand, are willing to share it and defend its operative effect.
There is scant difference between the ejaculation of generalities that Brennan and Hungerford are pimping right now and the Republican broken record of ‘the rich are the job-creators, so we must lower their taxes so that they’ll spend all of their tax-savings on creating jobs.’
The difference is that no one (save Bill Maher perhaps) ever calls the Republicans (and their apologists) out on that repeated-to-an-extent-that-proves-Goebbels’-intonation-about-repetition fallacy.
Brennan, Hungerford and their exterminationist horde claim that what they are proposing is “is in no way a denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons” yet the proposal is, by its very operation, a self-perpetuating, detrimental classification scheme (1) that all transsexual persons must, on demand, submit to in any context in which bathroom usage is even a theoretical possibility, and (2) no transsexual person may ever challenge, no matter how far removed the transsexual person is from genital surgery and/or governmental recognition of change of sex status.
Brennan, Hungerford and their exterminationist horde claim that what they are proposing is “is in no way a denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons” and does not include “panty checks” under the imprimatur of criminal law, yet there is no possibility in any universe – be it ours or the exterminationists’ bizarro world – of mandating that “[a]ll persons- including trans identified persons- retain access to the bathroom assigned to their birth-sex (/reproductive capacity)” without the ultimate requirement of a panty check.
Brennan, Hungerford and their exterminationist horde claim that what they are proposing is “is in no way a denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons” and does not include “panty checks” under the imprimatur of criminal law, yet if “their birth-sex (/reproductive capacity)” is in any way a legal demarcation line with respect to valid entrance into any defined physical space, then there is no possibility in any universe – be it ours or the exterminationists’ bizarro world – of mandating that “[a]ll persons- including trans identified persons- retain access to the bathroom assigned to their birth-sex (/reproductive capacity)” without the force of criminal law being the ultimate after-the-fact decider of whether any particular person had the right to be in any particular defined physical space at a given time.
What Brennan, Hungerford and the trans-exterminationists are demanding is the unfettered, unchallengeable authority to – rehetorically if not physically – force all transsexual women to wear penis-shaped patches on our clothing and “XY’ tatoos on our forearms, an unfettered, unchallengeable de facto ability to, at the earliest juncture of any relevant discussion, factor any transsexual person (female or male) out of any consideration for any benefit or opportunity based on knowledge that all transsexuals would by law always be forced to divulge up front to anyone engaging in consideration of dissemination of any benefit or opportunity and that will, irrespective of any Brennan-Hungerford-approved legal wording to the contrary, form the basis for all (and it will be all) ultimate decisions against dissemination of any benefit or opportunity to any transsexual person based on the dogmatically-unchallengable unreasonability of having to accommodate transsexual persons on equal terms as non-transsexual persons.
In its infamous miscegenation decision State v. Jackson the Missouri Supreme Court never explicitly says that African-Americans are not human. Rather, it presumes as being “well-authenticated” that children of interracial unions are sterile biped mules and, in turn, the the force of criminal law be available to prevent and/or punish the creation of such (attempted) marriages.
No, the court never explicitly said that whites and African-Americans are different species.
It didn’t have to.
This is in no way a denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons.
Well of course not…
seeing that one can’t deny human rights to those who one implicitly views as non-human.