QUESTIONS FOR GQ MAGAZINE AND THE ACLU
On May 5, 2021, GQ Magazine published an interview with Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s Deputy Director of Transgender Justice. GQ framed the discussion as being about “The Republican War Against Trans Kids,” and in the piece, both Chase and the interviewer accused several conservative organizations of eugenics and genocide.
After accusing these conservative organizations of eugenics and genocide, this is what Chase had to say about the feminists (who are typically not Republicans, counter to what GQ would have us believe) who are pushing back against the redefinition of sex to mean “gender identity” in the law:
“In the same way, cis white anti-trans women are pushing what they're calling a feminist project, particularly in the context of sports, that at its core is fixated on the notion that men are better, stronger and faster than women. They're so invested in hating trans people that they're willing to push that, and in the process of doing so, give the state the power to decide who is enough of a woman.”
First, feminists are not “cis,” and Chase is aware of this. For Chase to call us “cis” violates the first rule of the gender identity industry, which is not to assign a gender identity to another person. Chase’s hypocrisy is on blatant display here. Second, none of us calls our movement a “feminist project” – it’s a political movement to liberate women and girls (i.e., human females). Third, Chase completely ignores the fact that there are countless black and brown women, all over the world, who are fighting the gender identity industry, and Chase’s complete dismissal of these women should be seen as the rank racism that it is. Fourth, it is undeniable that males generally have performance advantages over females in sports, which every person on the planet knows; it’s not as though feminists just made this up. And finally, no feminist has ever wanted to “give the state the power to decide who is enough of a woman;” the sex called woman is not a spectrum.
Notably, to the best of my knowledge, GQ did not reach out to a single feminist for commentary or input about these matters.
Moving on, I have two questions: (1) Why is GQ publishing this factually incoherent nonsense, and (2) Why does Chase Strangio still have a job at the ACLU?
In January 2019, I appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation called “The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left.” At the time, I served on the board of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), a position from which I resigned in 2020.
Shortly thereafter, Chase took to Twitter to criticize me and the other panelists.
(Point of clarification: I was not, in fact co-Chair of WoLF at the time; as mentioned, I was serving on the board.)
It is true that WoLF co-authored an amicus brief in the Grimm case with FPA, and to the best of my knowledge, WoLF has never claimed otherwise.
More to the point, why does Chase get away with putting “liberals” and “feminists” in scare quotes, as though the panelists did not actually have left-leaning and feminist credentials? I have always been, and remain, a Democrat, and I believe the same is true of my co-panelists (but they can correct me if I am wrong).
No one is debating anyone’s existence. The idea that we are somehow debating people’s existence is a common trope in the discussion about the redefinition of sex to include so-called “gender identity” in the law. It is also simply not true. Literally no one is debating anyone’s right to exist. The fact that Chase gets away with saying things like this, while facing no employment repercussions, is astonishing.
But this one takes the cake:
This one raised a few questions and observations for me:
Who does Chase have in mind as the “we” who are allowing “people like” me to do anything? I was invited to speak on a panel. I accepted the invitation. Does Chase think that someone other than me is in a position to decide which invitations I ought and ought not to accept? Who “allows” me to speak? Who has this authority?
I do not “use my ACLU credentials” for any purpose. It is simply a fact that I used to work at the ACLU. Moreover, I am quite proud of the work that I did there on mass incarceration and police militarization. Would Chase prefer that I simply omit that fact from my bio? Why would I do that? Because it doesn’t fit Chase’s narrative?
“Violent vision for trans death.” For the record, I have never had a “violent vision” for anyone’s death. Why does Chase get away with making such accusations? What does that even mean? Why does the ACLU not hold Chase to any standard of account, at all?
“To be seen as a victim.” Of what is Chase saying that I want to be seen as a victim? Is it possible that Chase knows that systemic male violence against women is real?
As for Chase’s language of my wanting to be seen as a “purveyor of some truth that exists behind the pages of our advocacy for trans existence,” this is just postmodern silliness, and anyone who needs help deciphering it might ask Judith Butler. For my part, I will just say that I don’t sell or deal in goods. I’m not afraid of speaking truth, and I have no idea why Chase is.
After that tweet from Chase from January 2019, someone asked me if I planned to sue for defamation. My answer was no, because I didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer, but also, why should I have to? Chase seems to be able to get away with saying things like this on a regular basis, without ever providing any support or evidence, and the ACLU simply doesn’t seem to care.
Later in 2019, Chase talked with commentator Chris Hayes about gender issues in the legal system, and stated the following:
“I am a civil rights and constitutional lawyer who fundamentally doesn't believe in the Constitution and the legal system.”
That the ACLU allows Chase to get away with this is truly mind-boggling. One of the most eminent attorneys at the ACLU doesn’t believe in the Constitution and the legal system. There are legitimate questions to be asked about why the ACLU continues to employ an attorney who believes in neither the Constitution nor the legal system, and one of them just might have to do with money, but we will leave those questions for another day.
Even later in 2019, Chase again took to Twitter, this time to complain that Chase had bad credit, due to an inability to check the mail for bills because of the risk that the bills would have Chase’s birth name in the address. Chase complained that this is a “cost of being trans.”
Chase went on to explain that all of this is because some people fail to “work on correct pronouns” and admonished everyone to “do better.”
I couldn’t help but wonder why it was so difficult for Chase to notify collectors of the proper name. Women do this all the time when they get married and assume their husbands’ names or get divorced and revert to their previous names. I also couldn’t help but wonder why someone at the ACLU didn’t simply tell Chase about autopay; it would have saved a lot of trouble. In any event, was anyone at the ACLU worried about Chase’s ability to effectively represent clients, given this seeming inability to check the mail and pay the bills?
In 2020, I was preparing to file an amicus brief on behalf of the Women’s Human Rights Campaign’s U.S. chapter in the case of Hecox v. Little, which is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and in which Chase is one of the primary attorneys for the plaintiffs. To file an amicus brief, an attorney is required to obtain either the consent of the parties or permission of the court. I sought consent to file from the parties, and received this email message from Chase:
I stared at that email message for a while. As I stared, a few questions arose in my mind:
If Chase truly believed that I had a “violent vision for trans death,” why didn’t Chase report me to the appropriate authorities immediately?
If Chase truly believed that I had a “violent vision for trans death,” wouldn’t Chase immediately alert the 9th Circuit to the fact that someone who has a “violent vision for trans death” was seeking consent to file an amicus brief in a case in which Chase represents one of the parties?
If Chase truly believed that I had a “violent vision for trans death,” would Chase not, at a minimum, refuse consent for me to file and force me to seek permission of the Court?
The truth is that Chase does not believe that I have a “violent vision for trans death” (whatever that may mean), any more than Chase believes that the conservative groups mentioned in the GQ article are engaged in eugenics and genocide. Why the ACLU allows Chase to get away with saying things like this, with zero professional repercussions, deserves examination.
With the GQ piece, though, Chase may finally have taken things too far. In it, Chase states:
And then it became sort of the cause of Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald and Jesse Singal and all these other people who are just somehow finding their moment to be like, "Oh yes, trans people are so disgusting. And I feel that way. And now I get to frame this around my right to speak without criticism."
For anyone who doesn’t know, Singal is a journalist who frequently writes for New York Magazine, sometimes on the topic of “gender identity,” and is a co-host of Blocked and Reported. He didn’t take too kindly to Chase’s remarks, and posted this statement on Twitter:
So, I ask GQ: What is it going to take for mainstream media outlets such as yourselves to stop publishing Chase’s dangerous (and inaccurate) accusations?
And I ask my former employer: What is it going to take for you to stand up and hold Chase accountable for years of brazen unprofessionalism, hyperbolic whining, and unsubstantiated accusations?