Thursday, January 17, 2019

Polemicist: If trans people are protected from workplace discrimination more disabled women will be raped

Natasha Chart
Natasha Chart | Image: The Federalist
Nothing is too stupid for The Federalist. On Thursday Natasha Chart writes: How Do We Reconcile Gender Self-Identification With Protecting The Disabled? The answer to her rhetorical question is: “Doing so is unnecessary.” I'll get there but first:
The Insider headline on a story about the unsolved rape of a San Carlos Apache woman in a long-term care facility in Arizona read, “Police to take DNA from every male carer who had access to the woman who gave birth after 14 years in a vegetative state.”
[…]
This straightforward and horrifying situation is the tip of the iceberg regarding the abuse of disabled women and girls
[…]
Yet the Democratic Party is likely to … reintroduce a legal obliteration of sex through gender identity policies in the Equality Act.
Forgive the ellipses — this woman is painfully verbose. “Legal obliteration of sex?” Seriously? The truth is that Natasha Chart is not really concerned for the welfare of the disabled. This is just pretext for denigrating transgender people.

Chart has now written three pieces for The Federalist. While she claims to be a radical feminist, all three pieces attack transgender people. She hasn't posted anything about women's liberation, why we need the ERA, equal pay for equal work or any other topic that should be of far greater interest to a feminist.

Ms. Chart claims to be the board chair of Women's Liberation Front (known as WOLF). WOLF has annual revenues less than $50,000 and it consists of a website and a mail drop. It was only ruled a nonprofit in February, 2018. It doesn't seem to do much other than to complain about transgender women which causes me to wonder about its legitimacy. But I digress.

The paragraphs get progressively more vacuous:
Consider the plan to take DNA from every male member of staff. What if a male member of staff had followed his heart some years back to identify as female, and had been allowed to change all of his documentation to reflect this? If the culprit is now claiming to be a woman, police may miss him.
Allow me to cut to the chase (and perform a drivelectomy). With the admission that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, I cannot find a case of a transgender woman ever raping another woman with one exception. Apparently this happened once at a women's prison in the UK.

In fact, I am unable to find a case in the United States where a transgender woman has ever done violence to another woman. The religious right promotes this theme in order to invoke paranoia. It has nothing to do with protecting women. Rather, it relates to a disapproval of trans people based on scripture. Apparently Ms. Chart believes the BS.

Presumably, if Ms. Chart had any evidence to support her contention then she would have cited it. She does not. Although, she does devote some text to defend one of Phyllis Schlafly's concerns over the ERA which I find odd for a “radical feminist.”

Perhaps Natasha Chart is legitimate. Perhaps she is not. It's less relevant than the simple fact that transgender women do not pose a threat of any kind to other women (or feminists for that matter). Positing otherwise is just baseless fear mongering that threatens to further marginalize a vulnerable minority.

Trans people have enough problems to cope with without adding this mindless, gratuitous bigotry. In other words, Ms. Chart is a far greater threat to transgender women than transgender women are to anyone else.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.