Why Jane Crow

So I have touched a few nerves.

And, in return, a few are touched back.

Recently, a particular Cockroach wrote a piece that says that the stuff she has promoted, and that she continues to promote, is not like Jim Crow laws.

Aside from the whole White girl deciding what is Jim Crow and what isn’t thing, I thought I would tackle some of her statements and use her own work in order to demonstrate how, in a gendered society, her ideas actively match those of Jim Crow, were it applied to Trans people.

In order to make this more visible, as well, I am calling this kind of gendered activity she is promoting Jane Crow, because 9% of her issue is with Trans women, and the rules she promotes are based in her rampant hostility towards Trans women, whom she now says are not women at all (stepping away from her previous position).

I will, for now, ignore the fact that she is actively promoting Ron Gold‘s ideas once, more, and then aiding them by publishing further transphobic ideas. That all of them are shown to have been categorically wrong is irrelevant to her — in her quest to demonize trans people (and that is her quest, make no mistake), she doesn’t particularly care.

First off, she herself admits to a hostile worldview of Trans people. In much the same way that anti-LGBT Christians say they love their gay people, and all that anti-gay shit they do is done out of love because those gay people are really just delusional and God will fix them, she says that trans women are really just deluded men, and a good trip to a real therapist along with some good drugs will help them, but for those poor deluded fools who just can’t be fixed, she is willing to allow certain very specific rules to remain in place that apply only to trans people.

Let me rephrase that for you: she wants to make a law that requires only certain people to do certain things, and that they must do those things in order to be considered citizens and capable of acting like they are not treated worse than she is.

The basis of all the Jim Crow laws is to single a group or class of persons out for specific treatment that differs from the treatment of other persons, in a manner that limits the ability of that group to have free and unfettered access to public facilities. That’s it in a nutshell, and I get that from Westlaw.  Jane Crow laws work the same way, and are mostly concerned with that self-same free and unfettered access to public accommodations. They seek to block trans people who have not met a particularly onerous requirement from having that access, and they actively ignore best practices (in no small part because the authors believe that the best practices are entirely wrong, and that we should return to the pre-1970′s era of treatment when the norm was to make effort to stop people from transitioning, including drugs, electroshock therapy, and incarceration and incompetence declaration), from that free and unfettered access to public accommodations.

All Jane Crow laws work this way — and the places they are most concerned with is the restrooms, and they are informed entirely by the basis that Trans women are not women, ad trans men are not men.

There is no singularly more transphobic concept in the universe than that one.

Additionally, the author’s lie throughout their submission. As an example, they state:

We do not single out individual males as predatory, nor do we think any particular male is more likely to harm females.

However, the most recent history of the individual referenced here as Cockroach indicates this is an outright lie.  She has, of late, made it a point to single out individuals for being what she terms as violent, and, indeed, her tumblr is filled with such.  At the same time, her justification for it is that very same statement — she isn’t singling out individual trans people, she is saying that all trans people are violent.

Granted, people change and evolve, but typically it is a forward progression, not a reverse one, and, therefore, the only practical defense here is to say that they devolved.

Additionally, in the submission, they state:

Accordingly, definitions of ‘gender identity‘ that permit the individual to “self identify” without any duration or medical documentation requirements present the potential for a human rights violation against all females.xxxii

So their argument is that all females are endangered by the presence of trans people in the rest room, because trans people without any sort of specific, approved of medical treatment for what they think of as a delusion suffered by violent males.  This assertion holds that they represent a threat to the wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, partners, and friends of trans women. That all women are endangered, are put at risk, and the argument is that by treating them properly, they will not be at such risk, especially if the laws specifically promote this specific treatment.

This forgets, notably, the point made earlier – that trans women are, under that treatment, expected to use the proper restroom, and, indeed, that they may not be allowed to move forward in transition if they do not. And that this happens *before* surgery.

Which is why the laws are written the way they are, and which is what they are, actively, working against.

Taken together, we have a consistent pattern of  seeing trans people as not what they are, but rather what these women have decided, for themselves, and regardless of the positions of the law and the effective science of the day, what they are.  They are, then, attempting to establish a series of changes which enforce a set of laws that are specific to a single class of persons without regard for the propriety as determined by experts in the subject, and based on their own ideology and personal prejudices.

This is what was done with Jim Crow laws, and this is why the comparison between Jim Crow and Jane Crow laws are frequently made.

In order to create a defense for herself against the above deconstruction, she provides a selection of laws that she has pulled from various states.  Including my own. She is, then, arguing that she is not promoting such laws because what she wants is in no way exactly like the examples that she gives, except that she ignores certain provisions in them.

This is the only example she provides (in a post that is essentially cribbed from someone else) of a bathroom related law:

Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities. Alabama

So let’s look at what she has advocated:

I DO NOT KNOW YOU. YOU BE YOU. I HOPE YOU GET LEGAL STATUS FEMALE. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY BLOG, YOU WOULD SEE I SUPPORT THAT. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU ARE MALE. THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU DESERVE RIGHTS OR RESPECT.

So, um, yeah.  Males do not deserve rights or respect.  Like the right to use the restroom.

Add that in with her consistent insistence that Female Only space be observed, that Female Only space means no males, and that

The other states that have adopted protections based on “gender identity” have similarly
broad definitions that not only incorporate stereotypes about males and female into law, but also
allow anyone asserting claim to a “gender identity‘ including non-transgender and non-transsexual people – to invade all space rationally segregated by sex.

Gives us the awareness that what she says is that because restroom are rationally segregated by sex, Trans people should not be allowed to use the restroom for females because:

Trans women are male

Which is something she continually states over and over again like a mantra.

Therefore, since she generally refuses to make clear her motivations, and prefers instead to distract, derail, and generally avoid any of the actually difficult conversations about the topic of her paper (pointedly coming up with pretend reasons why a third-party moderation on the subject isn’t possible, and even going so far as to create a space that was then edited when commentary was posted) or any of her views (a tactic she absolutely borrows directly from the people who in the 1960′s were busy defending the Jim Crow laws), we have to look at the combined output of her writing to make plain what she refuses to say openly.

Trans women are males, and, as males, they should not be allowed to invade rationally segregated spaces for females. This means that these males, who are, she is quick to point out, are deluded, misguided, and nuts, despite the position of experts in that area that this is not the case, and despite her occasional use of 30 and 40-year-old opinions and marginal hold outs on the current science, are a threat to all women, and, therefore should not be allowed access to female only spaces, up to and including the restroom.

This is a key point of those who seek to deny rights to trans people, and is predicated on the same basic ideas:

  • Men are predators
  • Men are dangerous
  • Trans women are men

Only one of which is transphobic, and none of which are true.

 On top of this, in keeping with standard practices of the reference (Jane Crow), she consistently refuses to accept the use of the word Cis as applying to her.  This is exactly like the refusal of white folks to be “White”.  They preferred the term Caucasian.

She also makes the argument that “cis” erases females.  Yet she does not make the argument that White erases females, or that Black erases females, or that human being erases females in the same way she is arguing. This is evidence of a very specific kind of prejudice I have already explored and revealed, but here we have a very specific and direct example of her transphobia — her animosity towards trans people, transness, and the culture and experiences of trans people.

She has also stated that there is no such thing as transphobia — again, a direct comparative to Jim Crow’s defenders saying that racism isn’t real.

Cockroach also pretends to answer her critics in a piece that was published in Baltimore Outloud that I used to demonstrate how she avoids talking about these subjects and how she uses an appearance of being anything but venal and deeply, deeply prejudiced against trans people in a post I wrote a while back. As well as further responses to the basis of hers and her friend’s arguments here and here.

In the last few months, in order to defend her position, she has used her unexamined and fervently held ideology — which she admits she has accepted as a belief, and, therefore, will not examine it, and that as a result she views what other people state to her as a belief — to engage in:

  • the outing and active harassment of a minor (outing by sending a letter that explicitly misgenders and then makes note of the past and present sex & gender of the individual)
  • Prescriptively defining all women as being strictly based in the ability to give birth
  • Prescriptively determining what gender expressions and roles define womanhood for individuals (which is hilarious to me, personally, given that the core idea from her side of things is that it is the stereotypes she is having an issue with being codified into law, while using those self-same stereotypes herself)
  • Actively harassing trans people who are, at best, half her age, both online and in person
  • Attending an inclusive event carrying materials specifically selected because of their non inclusive nature to provoke and disrupt the event (successfully, I will note), then blaming the result of said provocation on those who confronted her for such.
  • slut shaming
  • victim blaming
  • deciding for other people who is and who isn’t a lesbian
  • advocated against hate crime laws
  • made racist and ethnocentric statements
  • Defined other people by body parts, in the same way that “cunt” is used, while saying that it shouldn’t be.

These are not the actions of someone who is genuinely supportive and who claims to support “rational” anti-discrimination protections. The reason being that she wants to be the one that defines what rational is, and, apparently, she feels that she is above all the people who make these decision because they are not doing so in a rational way.

Even though they made their decision based on the science and understandings of experts on trans lives, which she is anything but.

She also engages in the time worn tactic of saying that she is a voice for those too timid or scared to speak for themselves — something I am personally very familiar with, since I have to deal with Cathy Herrod (what is with the name Cathy?) who likewise claims such, in her quest to deny :LGBT people any sort of legal equality and does very much the same thing in terms of rhetoric.

Racists and homophobes use the same concept — TVC has traditionally spoken for its member churches and claimed that they are afraid of potential repercussions.  The opponents of Proposition 8 and various other activities have claimed in court briefs that Trans people and gay people are violent and dangerous and that exposing their names to the public would endanger their lives.

She makes an argument for freedom of speech, and then back it up with a freedom from consequence except for those people she actively opposes.  She says she will stand up for these silent voices and take the heat for them, which is a martyring effort meant to appeal to the most base human qualities.

This means she is actively saying she is trying to give cover to those who are afraid to voice their own transphobia, their own anxiety, aversion, and/or animus towards transness, trans culture, and trans people.

Mostly, however, she is very much against those who are not strictly binary and who do not met her prescriptive ideal of feminism. As she did while I was writing this, by stating that believing that men can be feminists is not feminism, and is instead humanism.

Which she decided for them.

So when she says that she is not engaging in Jane Crow advocacy, she is not only lying, she is doing it in a manner that is intended to stop people from seeing just how deeply harmful she desires to be to trans people — and most likely because she honestly doesn’t belie e she is being harmful.

She almost certainly believes that she is helping trans people, in the same way that the love of God will help trans people to overcome their weaknesses and delusions.

Her trigger for all of this latest stuff is a poorly written piece that she decided means that she must have sex with a trans person, which it was absolutely noting like that.

It was intended to be a piece on the ways in which, in general, lesbian spaces still retain the very same ideas she is promoting, and how this deeply transphobic undercurrent affects the ability of women who are trans from finding other women to be with.

And she has to defend this argument as lesbians are not interested in males.  More specifically, he argues that they cannot be attracted to them, despite all the studies demonstrating that trans women are women.

That is further helped along by her deep seated resentment that so many butch lesbians have transitioned, oblivious to the fact that the reason they came out as butch lesbians in the first place was that people like her say the shit she says.

The web of deception, misinformation, structural altering, and outright lies that she engages in are all soundly directed at trans women, as well, thus demonstrating her collusion with the patriarchal systems of thought that she claims to be fighting in a radical manner, when she is doing anything but being radical in her everyday actions.

Her own patriarchal bargain is grossly visible in her writing and the ways she approaches transness, and her anxiety and aversion to it is plain and clear, no matter how many times she states that she used to be an ally.

These are all things that led to her working against the rights of trans people. Both now, and in the past.

She is, in the words of so many, a clear and present danger, who has worked very hard to resurrect a set of ideological and moral ideas that have as their goal the moral extermination of trans people.

Welcome to the big time, Ms Brennan. You are now in the league of Michelle Bachmann, Maggie Gallagher, and Cathy Herrod.