Protect trans people, throw women to the lions
The ACLU is ecstatic. Women, not so much.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by an anti-transgender group against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) challenging SB132, the groundbreaking law protecting transgender people incarcerated in California.
The law protecting men incarcerated in California at the expense of women incarcerated with them. Men are protected and women are endangered, and the ACLU is just thrilled.
Lambda Legal, Transgender Law Center (TLC), the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), and O’Melveny & Myers had joined California’s request to dismiss the case on behalf of the Transgender Gender-Variant & Intersex Justice Project (TGI Justice Project) and four currently incarcerated trans women who won the right to intervene in the lawsuit in August 2023.
Four currently incarcerated men who want to be housed with the women, regardless of what the women want (and need).
“We are relieved that the court saw through this legally flawed challenge, and rejected its distorted arguments,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Nora Huppert. “In dismissing this challenge, the court recognized that California has an obligation to protect the safety of incarcerated transgender people.”
And the court ignored that California has an obligation to protect the safety of incarcerated women. And the ACLU rejoices.
The lawsuit, Chandler v. CDCR, was filed by the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), an anti-trans organization based in Washington, DC, on behalf of three incarcerated cisgender women, and Woman II Woman, a California-based nonprofit. Woman II Woman was later dismissed from the lawsuit.
WoLF is of course a feminist organization, as the ACLU and Chase Strangio know perfectly well.
There was a recruiter for the ACLU doing his thing next to KEXP and the bus stop this afternoon. I wished I could push beans up his nose.
In yesterday’s decision, the court dismissed all of the remaining plaintiffs’ purported constitutional claims. The court noted that many of their alleged harms were speculative and it refuted their bizarre attempt to characterize transgender status as a religion.
It’s not all that bizarre. I call it an ideology rather than a religion, but the commonality is that it rests on absurd religiousy claims that require faith as opposed to clarity of thought.
“Californians of all backgrounds, races, and genders know that everyone deserves respect, dignity and to live free from discrimination.” said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper (they/them), Managing Attorney at Transgender Law Center.
Everyone except women.
“The court saw this lawsuit for what it was and understood that SB 132 simply requires CDCR to live up to its independent obligation to keep all people safe and free from harm.”
All male people. Not the other kind.
The latest from WoLF on the matter: https://womensliberationfront.org/news/the-fight-is-not-over-next-steps-in-chandler-v-cdcr
Since they seem fine with their calling us anti-trans, should we be calling them (the ACLU) a misogynist organization?
“Women are being raped in prison? Let them identify as non-binary” – Shawn Thomas Meerkamper (they/them) (probably).
many of the alleged harms were speculative
So – some were not, but we don’t care about that.
Well worth a read: https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/the-scandal-of-men-in-womens-prisons
@Arcadia. Thanks for the link. Just donated.
@Sondrval. Alleged, indeed. At the WoLF link, you’ll see that one of the trans interveners will be tried in CA court on two counts of rape of female prisoners he was incarcerated with.
“…many of the alleged harms were speculative…”, as opposed to the totally real and not at all imagined harm of calling a man “he”, or of not allowing incarcerated criminals to wear skirts or accessories, or of imprisoning those poor convicted rapists where they are denied access to their preferred sort of victim. Right.
I supported the ACLU for 20+ years because of their annoying habit of fighting to uphold the principles of the Bill of Rights. Since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and the 19th Amendment wasn’t until 1920, I suppose they technically aren’t hypocrites.
IANAL, but for what it’s worth, I looked over the decision, and I think the Court dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, and this–
–is baseless spin.
Apparently part of the problem is simply that the Court doesn’t have authority to actually redress the Plaintiffs’ claims:
They have 21 days to file an amended Complaint.
I think what’s needed is an overhaul of law and procedure that is simply outside the bounds of the Court’s authority.
The decision itself is here: https://lambdalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-15_Chandler_decision.pdf
Lady Mondegreen (#9) is mostly correct, that the decision is primarily “procedural,” in that the case was dismissed for a variety of reasons mostly having to do with the Court’s (lack of) jurisdiction and the like. However, the language in the decision does not suggest that a similar suit would likely be successful “on its merits.”