Today I found that I was the subject of another Dana Lane Taylor commentary. Dana is an opinion leader in the TS Separatist group and in this post she claims that I am trying to force her and those like her to give up identifying a transsexual women:
Then there are the power struggles which seem to have ramped up a lot lately. Cristan Williams, Supreme Queen of Transgender Historical Records and better than anyone else on the interwebz, is taking the lead. She has been doing extensive research into the history of the word transgender, and is trying to make those of us who reject the identity accept it. No matter who coined that term or what history there is behind the term, we can just look at what it means now. I have referenced Charles Prince as the coiner of the term, before, but you know what? I could really give a shit who coined it. I reject it simply for what it is today.
Presenting a historical record that isn’t aligned with Dana’s belief about reality apparently means that I am the, “Supreme Queen of Transgender Historical Records and better than anyone else on the interwebz.” She then moves into victim mode by climbing a rhetorical cross claiming, “[Cristan] has been doing extensive research into the history of the word transgender, and is trying to make those of us who reject the identity accept it.”
TO BE CLEAR:
I have never once claimed that a Separatists must stop self-identifying in a way that is most comfortable for them. Claiming that I have done so is a demonstrable lie. I don’t care at all what a Separatist does with their life nor do I care how they chose to self-identify and I certainly don’t care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community.
Believe it or not, I don’t sit around dreaming up ways to force Dana or any separatist into being part of the trans community. It’s the height of hubris to think that people actually do that.
Me investigating some Separatist truth claims isn’t about Dana or any other Separatist. I investigated those truth claims to satisfy my own curiosity. I posted my findings when it turned that a number of the myths spread by Separatists were just that: myths… as in..
As much as a Separatist might be amazed to learn, I didn’t conduct my research because I have a vendetta against them; Separatists merely sparked my curiosity. What Dana does with her life, how she lives it and how she choses to self-identify isn’t any of my business and I therefore do no comment on it – and that goes for any other Separatist out there. I’ve only ever commented on the factual realities surrounding their unsourced assertions of fact and when I’ve done so, I cite my sources.
TO THE SEPARATISTS OUT THERE:
If you want to write about me and the things that I’ve said, fine; just stop lying about the things I’ve said. Stop pretending that I care how you self-identify. What I care about are the facts. If you want to discuss the facts, then fine. However, arguing against made up positions only discredits your already dubious claims. If you can’t/won’t even deal with the criticisms of just a few of the truth statements you’ve made honestly, how can I – or anyone else – be expected to trust that your claims are worthy of serious consideration?
Stuff like this…
– “Just Jennifer” misrepresenting this post –
… divests the Separatist group of credibility. Just Jenifer isn’t the only one who lies about what I’ve said. Therefore, here are (yet again) the handful off issues I’ve raised:
These are my only points. My “agenda” begins and ends with these 7 bullet points. If folks are going to criticize me, then at least deal with my actual points instead of arguing against points you’re pretending I’ve made.
AN ANSWER TO DANA’S CHALLENGE:
On 8/13 (today) Dana issued a challenge about a post from yesterday (8/12) featuring Cathy Brennan doing damage control. Dana wrote “So, how many of these leaders in the transgender / transvestite community published Cathy Brennan Answers Critics? None, so far.” So, I will meet that challenge. To wit:
Cathy Brennan: I support rational anti-discrimination protections for people of transgender and transsexual experience. As you know, I actively supported HB 235 in Maryland last spring, which would have banned discrimination in housing, employment and credit.
The key word is “rational” and what Cathy claims “rational” means as the entire context of her statement turns upon what Cathy means by this caveat. She later clears this question up for this particular audience saying:
CB: All anti-discrimination laws have an exception built in them to permit discrimination based on sex in certain public accommodations – this is why we have sex-segregated bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and the like. The definition of gender identity that the LGBT organizations keep putting forth is overbroad, and allows males who are not transgender or transsexual access into female only space. This is bad for women.
She goes on to add a bit of context to what she considers to be “rational” later in the article:
CB: We fully support anti-discrimination protections for transgender and transsexual people that do not run roughshod over laws that protect females…
She then end the interview saying:
CB: I appreciate and respect that women of transgender and transsexual experience struggle to be accepted and recognized as women. I personally accept women of transgender and transsexual experience as women. Meanwhile, females in 2011 continue to struggle to be accepted as human. I would encourage women of transgender and transsexual experience to help us in our struggle as well.
When Cathy is interviewing for a piece that is supposedly aimed at simply answering critics, Cathy’s stance can seem fairly reasonable enough. The problem with this article is that the context in which Cathy uses “rational” is NOT the same context she chose to use in her UN letter:
Females require sex-segregated facilities for a number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of male sexual violence against females and the uniquely female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence. [xxi] Public policy, therefore, rationally permits sex segregation in certain settings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
xxi: Please see “Men in Women’s Restrooms,” http://ts-is-liberation.org/Men+in+womens+restrooms, an article cataloguing the presence of males in female-only space on the TS-IS Liberation website maintained by transsexual activist Dana Lane Taylor. Our sincere thanks to Ms. Taylor for compiling this information.
Let me ONCE AGAIN explain why this is deplorable. As supporting evidence for her statement, Cathy cites Dana’s personal wiki. Dana claims that transgender women are a risk to cisgender women:
The Transgender Community wants to stay in denial about the dangers of men using women’s private spaces. On this page, I am pointing to articles that show men should not be allowed in women’s private spaces. There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc. deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces.
Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser, transvestite and gender variants.
When Cathy says this:
Cathy Brennan: I support rational anti-discrimination protections for people of transgender and transsexual experience.
And then goes on to lend the following context:
CB: I appreciate and respect that women of transgender and transsexual experience struggle to be accepted and recognized as women. I personally accept women of transgender and transsexual experience as women.
This carries a certain meaning. Had this been the context of the UN letter, I don’t think I would have taken issue with it. My issue is that the above context is not the same as the following:
Females require sex-segregated facilities for a number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of male sexual violence against females and the uniquely female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence. [see http://ts-is-liberation.org/Men+in+womens+restrooms for more info on this issue] Public policy, therefore, rationally permits sex segregation in certain settings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
The link Cathy cites claims that transgender women pose a sexual assault risk to cisgender women. This statement also carries a certain meaning.
The behavior Cathy is engaging in is called equivocation. If Cathy, Dana or anyone else is not clear on why the argument posed in the UN letter is an example of disgusting bigotry, please feel free to READ THIS.
I am ashamed for Dana that instead of backing off such disgusting intellectual barbarism, she’s doubled down. It doesn’t matter to me that Cathy has moved into damage control mode and is now redefining the caveats she used in her UN letter for use by her apologists; what matters to me is that the intellectual hucksterism that both Dana and Cathy engaged in through the UN letter has not been honestly addressed. Cathy can try to polish her intellectual turd and Dana can stick her head in the sand and pretend that she’s not engaging in the same kind of bigotry that the KKK deals in if she likes. However, it won’t change the demonstrable fact that Dana’s disgusting, fatuous and contemptible ideology is one of the favorite tools bigots have used throughout history: the “some sicko can be associated with a population and therefore the entire population should be viewed as being suspect” reasoning. My god… they should both be ashamed of their continued behavior. Hocking this obloquy to the UN once is bad enough, but then denying that you ever did so makes the offence that much worse.
Cross-posted from Ehipassiko