Repeat a Lie Often Enough, It Becomes True

In another lifetime, when I was young, I was very active in the effort to amend Maryland’s anti-discrimination law to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believed then, as I believe now, that sexual orientation discrimination is, in fact, sex discrimination. However, my feelings on this are irrelevant, as Maryland law made quite clear that sexual orientation discrimination and sex discrimination were two different things. So, many hundreds of people, over the course of many years, worked doggedly to change the law.

Looking back on this effort now, this History that is also “my life,” myths abound about what happened in Maryland during the mid-1990s to early 2000s.

One of the Great Myths about Gender Identity legislation in Maryland is that there was a secret Gay plot to strip Gender Identity protections from a bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Secret Plot Myth gets repeated even today.

Here are two recent restatements of this Myth from Donna Cartwright of the Maryland Coalition for Trans* Equality and Diego Sanchez.

The Maryland Coalition for Trans* Equality (MCTE) expressed its deep disappointment at the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee’s vote today to kill the Fairness for All Marylanders Act (SB 449) which would have extended anti-discrimination protection to transgender and gender-different people throughout the state.  “It is now 14 years since transgender protections were stripped from LGBT anti-discrimination legislation by the General Assembly. It’s long past time for the legislature to take meaningful action to address the severe discrimination and disadvantage that trans* people face,” said Donna Cartwright, a member of the MCTE Steering Committee.  The Coalition vowed to continue the fight for trans* rights in Maryland.  

Go Diego Go
Diego Sanchez, Massachusetts resident.

As a participant in the effort to pass sexual orientation anti-discrimination legislation in Maryland, it is frustrating to read statements from people like Diego Sanchez, who, as far as I know, were nowhere near Maryland to help us pass protections for Gays and Lesbians.  But Diego hears this from Donna Cartwright, so it becomes true – and Transgender groups in Maryland have continuously advanced this fantasy for years to guilt Gays and Lesbians into supporting their backwards, woman-hating legislation.

You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true. Indeed, it has been remarkably effective, and many Gays and Lesbians have adopted this facile statement as truth without question or examination.

Except, of course, it’s false.

Here’s what happened.

In 1996, 1997 and 1998, the Free State Justice Campaign (“Free State”), the predecessor to Equality Maryland, was the statewide group working to pass this bill (along with other groups, including the Lesbian Avengers).  It wasn’t easy working with Free State, because many of us considered it to not be aggressive enough. I worked on each of these legislative campaigns in different capacities. In 1996, I was a reporter at a legal newspaper, so I couldn’t actually publicly work on the bill (but I am guessing that I wrote about it). In 1997 and 1998, I worked at nonprofits and actively worked on the bills.

avengers

In each legislative session (and in sessions prior), the bills focused solely on sexual orientation.  You can read House Bill 67 – 1996House Bill 431 – 1997 and House Bill 68 – 1998 yourself and see.

Then came 1999. In 1999, Free State  introduced – with great fanfare –  a bill that included Gender Identity. They did this because the Human Rights Campaign,  from which Free State received funding, told them to do it.  That was  House Bill 315 – 1999.

There was no input from grassroots Gay organizations in Maryland about whether we wanted this in the bill.

None. Zero. Zilch.

But we supported it anyway, because we didn’t have a choice and we wanted – needed – protections for Gay and Lesbian People.

The Gender Identity language, unsurprisingly, got removed after an abysmal hearing in the House where Liz Seaton, the Executive Director of Free State, could not explain what the Gender Identity language meant (yes, I was at the hearing and no, it wasn’t pretty).  An amended version of House Bill 315 passed the House of Delegates, only to die in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (which anyone who knows Maryland politics knows was the place where things died, all the time, under the leadership of then-Senator Walter Baker).

The Transgender group active  in Maryland went BALLISTIC over the removal of Gender Identity, despite the fact that they could not articulate clearly the need for this language at the hearing (remember, I was there and no, it was not pretty). This was my first time around with violent Transgender activists.  Harassing telephone calls and cross-dressing men accosting me in bars became routine.  It seems that nothing has changed on that front, as this year,  people affiliated with MCTE experienced threats of physical violence for, apparently, their willingness to amend the bill to address some of the concerns about it.

Funny, Sissy Gays and Butch Dykes didn't feel sold out.
Press Release from a Trans Group, 1999. Funny, Sissy Gays and Butch Dykes didn’t feel sold out.

It’s a myth that the General Assembly “stripped” the Gender Identity language out and “sold out” the Transgender Community – what is actually true is that the Human Rights Campaign issued a top-down directive to Free State to include  completely subjective language that no one wanted and that Free State and the Transgender groups could not explain. It would be MORE ACCURATE to say that the Human Rights Campaign sold out the Gay and Lesbian Community by deciding, without any input from Gays and Lesbians, to support language that was anti-Feminist, anti-Gay and anti-Lesbian.

I have no idea why the Human Rights Campaign ordered Free State to include this language. Maybe they wanted to see what would happen. Maybe it was a cynical move to distinguish Gays and Lesbians from Transgender people. Maybe they felt overconfident, given the outpouring of support Gays and Lesbians received in the aftermath of the Matthew Shepard murder in October of 1998. I don’t like the Human Rights Campaign, and I didn’t support them in this – which is why we formed a separate group, a committee of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore (“GLCCB”), to work on this legislation, away from Free State.

The GLCCB group received ZERO funding from any national GLBT Organization. And we worked really hard and, eventually, the General Assembly approved the Anti-Discrimination Act  of 2001 – and all the while, a handful of Transgender activists led by the redoubtable Alyson Meiselman continuously accused Gays and Lesbians of selling out the Transgender Community and made homophobic statements to us – a trend that continues to this day (because homophobia in service to Transgender people is permissible).  The bill file for the Anti-Discrimination Act is hereThis includes all the written testimony on the bill.

cath107
Bill Signing of the Anti-Discrimination Act of 2001. Can you see me?

One of the other great Gender Identity Myths is that there is something “wrong” with asking individuals to demonstrate that they are, in fact, who they say they are. Transgender activists take great offense that the definition of Gender Identity should have any measure of objectivity. As a lawyer, I must, if I want to prevail, produce EVIDENCE to support my assertions and demonstrate my entitlement to some remedy. EVIDENCE does not include how one feels about a subject, or what one feels would be the best thing. EVIDENCE means Actual Facts.

The Anti-Discrimination Act  of 2001 was a creature of compromise.  Compromise can feel like a failure. Compromise happens everyday in legislative campaigns. One of the compromises to pass the bill follows:

An employer shall be immune from liability under this title or under the common law arising out of reasonable acts taken by the employer to verify the sexual orientation of any employee or applicant in response to a charge filed against the employer on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Md. STATE GOVERNMENT Code Ann. § 20-608.

That is, if you want to claim that your boss fired you because you are Gay, you better actually be Gay, and your employer can investigate whether you are actually Gay.

Evidence.

Advocates of Gender Identity legislation don’t care much for evidence. They are in favor, instead, of feelings.  Other states have adopted subjective definitions of Gender Identity as follows:

“Gender identity or expression” as a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth. Tell me, what IS a gender-related identity? Gender is not defined.

“Gender identity or expression” includes a person’s actual or perceived gender, as well as a person’s gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s sex at birth. Tradition? How do we decide that” Whose traditions?

“Gender identity or expression” as having or being perceived as having a gender related identity or expression whether or not stereotypically associated with a person’s assigned sex at birth. So we are talking stereotypes. Where do we look for a source of these stereotypes?

“Gender identity or expression” means a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person’s core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.  This definition ultimately allows an individual’s “sincerely held” belief to trump objective evidence.

These definitions are mushy and subjective. These definitions let ANYONE to claim Gender Identity as a basis for a discrimination claim, regardless of where they fall under what Trans Activists call the Umbrella.

Print
Hi. If you understand this, you are magical.

Transgender Activists pretend that everyone who opposes this legislation is a bigot. Indeed, some opponents of this legislation are bigots. Peter Sprigg is a total bigot.  However, people who are NOT bigots can also read this legislation and see just how mushy and subjective it is.  Women and Girls are not bigots because we don’t want to share sex-segregated spaces with Male-bodied people. Lesbian Feminists are not bigots for rejecting sex stereotypes. Regular people aren’t bigots for wanting a more objective standard on which to make decisions.

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for Transgender Activists to stop blaming everyone in Maryland for the failure of this legislation to advance and start looking at (1) themselves and how they treat people and (2) the bill itself.

And maybe, just maybe, Transgender Activists can start looking at history as it was instead of reinventing it as they need it to be.

eqmdeqmd1

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Repeat a Lie Often Enough, It Becomes True

  1. Firstly I think crossdresser should step out of the rain. Secondly the bill needs to go global, I dont get why you see it as a problem. To me it looks like a short cut to dismantling the gender straight jacket. How are they gonna be able to impose gender “norms” on women after a bill like that has passed? Once gender identity and expression becomes legally free and seperate from biological sex, gender as a form of control will be done with. It does not matter whether gender is just a collection of culturally defined Steriotype s or something thats innate, the days of telling someone whats appropriate behaviour or presentation for their sex will be over. If this legislation will protect anyone, regardless of their position under the umbrella then it will protect all females. Asking for proof of transition status before someone can recieve their rights is oppressive, as it provides no gender freedom, it forces people to medical transition. Sex descrimination acts are not enougth, they never have been enougth to stop gender being imposed on women. Sex discrimination acts dont stop women been forced to wear make up and high heels to work, they dont stop sex specific uniforms etc. With sex discrimination acts, people recieve the discrimination then have to make a claim. They could make you walk around in a skirt etc, as they can say its fair because the men dont get a option of not wearing trousers. They can insist on traditional dress for occasions etc. With a gender expression protection act for everyone, a woman could never be forced to wear a skirt, or even be called a she. The real reason they too, the gender stuff out of the original gay rights bill, was nothing to do with trans activists not being able to explain what gender expression is, it does not need explaining. We all know what it is. The patriarchy does not want gender to be anything other then what it is at present. Binary and assigned at birth. Gender must be taken back, and transformed into something else. At present we are assigned a gender, its given to us and we a prevented from taking gender thats not for our sex. When we get to chose to mix and match our gender, regardless of what our sex us, or what it is gonna be, oppression of women will be over. Sexism as we know it will have no meaning.

    • I’m not sure I understand your comment regarding crossdressers. The image above appears somewhat out of date, as crossdressers are now commonly considered to fall UNDER the TG umbrella. They are, in fact, quite excited to be under the umbrella, as their Internet chatter frequently confirms. It is the rare exception, now, who does not consider himself to be dual-gendered with a female name and separate social presence for his “sexy girl” side.

      Regarding legislation, introducing the concept of gender into law, in any way, is an automatic buckling up tight of the straight jacket. It codifies an abstract, variable, fluctuating concept by turning it into a “thing” which is then legally defined which, as a result, can subsequently be controlled.

      Currently, you are free.

      You, and I, are welcome to dress in whatever manner we wish, style our hair in any design possible, enhance our features with makeup, hair color, contact lenses, cosmetic surgery, etc. There are no laws which prevent you from, or force you into, doing any of the preceding.

      Obviously, there may be constraints on the job. Some are occupational hazards, such as long hair on an assembly line; high heeled open toe sandals in a busy warehouse of large, heavy objects; long beards on the welding floor of a metal fabrication shop; long acrylic nails in the artisan bakery that opened next to your favorite local bike shop . Some are protection of painstakingly created company image and expensively developed branding – that bite out of the Apple which gave us all so much ability, knowledge and power. The owners, stockholders and secured lenders of a commercial enterprise have invested heavily in that brand and image. They have a right to protect their investment.

      Just like I have the right to lock my fucking awesome steel framed fixie to the rack when I’m pub-crawling with friends. That’s just fair, to be able to protect what we own. So if how you look, your image, is the most important thing to you, then get a job where you can protect your image and look the way you want to look.

      You can do absolutely almost any job you like – there are very, very, very few exceptions limited to either sex. As women have continued to prove themselves capable of more strenuous, physically demanding work, they have gained employment in those fields. There are nearly no jobs, now or in the past, from which men have been excluded. The few exceptions in place for men are driven only by the well documented need to protect girls and women from sexual predation.

      Biological sex is already a thing. It is a scientific and medical classification which exists and readily distinguishes male, female and the rare Intersexed. The criteria for establishing sex are clearcut and agreed upon. Laws which protect you from discrimination on the grounds of your sex already exist.

      To say that sex discrimination laws are not enough to stop gender being imposed on women is a fair statement. This is because gender is something which is done TO women, while gender is something which is done FOR the benefit of men. Patriarchal Gender attempts to force women into stereotypical roles and forms of expression which are pleasing and appealing to men.

      Women have already fought the liberation to be free of that, and while we are NOT yet free, we are less restricted than we were a century ago. And we are continuing to free ourselves from male oppression.

      If laws are implemented which say all citizens are free to present as either masculine, feminine or something in between, then those terms “masculine” and “feminine” will be codified, they will be defined by law.

      Which means that for “masculine”, gender expression will be whatever – just be comfortable. Oh, and reasonably neat when required.

      And for “feminine”, gender expression will be dresses, skirts, high heels, nail polish, makeup, long hair, small waists, color treated hair, large firm breasts, form fitting clothes, hip hugging pants, thigh boots, garter belts, toothy smile, curled hair, dangling earrings, purses, open toe sandals, push-up bras, styled hair, Brazilian waxed, seamed stockings, sheer fabric blouses, arms and legs laser hair removed, corsets, evenly tanned skin, etc., etc., etc. the list will run on for 20 pages in the Federal Register. At font size 4.

      Laws can’t force people to like you, agree with you, or think well of you – they can only punish people for actions taken against you if it can be proven the actions harmed you and the actions took place as a result of that persons non-compliance with any given laws. Discrimination, of any sort, must be harmful, flagrant and evidential in order to be actionable against by law.

      Female is the root word for feminine. By legally defining all of the above as applicable of female, i.e. feminine, the stereotypes we have worked so hard to eliminate will be written into law and will be used to socially judge any woman who doesn’t fit the stereotype.

      We have spent 100’s of years fighting femininity, we don’t want to go back.

      If you are unhappy complying with the gender stereotypes of your sex, you can ignore them.

      If you don’t feel safe ignoring your gender stereotypes, then your activism needs to focus on eliminating the male stereotypes, not writing female stereotypes into law. Don’t forget…. you can’t write a law without first defining the subject being legislated.

      If you are unhappy with your biological sex, you need to get help learning to accept that and finding the best way for you to move forward with the life which you have. You do not have to “transition” to live a very feminine life as a man. Or, vice versa. No amount of medical treatment is going to change your sex. Cosmetic surgery and hormones may alter the way you look, but your biological sex is immutable. It will not change.

    • They’re not trying to separate gender and sex, they’re trying to replace sex with gender. And if they succeed there will be no place in society except our own homes where we have safe space away from men. CONSERVATIVE MUSLIMS IN MAJORITY-MUSLIM COUNTRIES understand the need for women’s space so that women can get away from the rampant sexism now and again. They don’t quite seem to understand that *they are causing* that sexism, but whatever, the protection is there. Replacing sex with gender, ignoring sex entirely, will mean dudes can go wherever they want and women have no right to object. That’s not a future I want.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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