Shea Bradley-Farrell - Just another transphobic religious extremist
Shea Bradley-Farrell is the latest anti-trans sophist to post to Heritage Foundation’s blog | via Twitter

A religious extremist attempts to redefine how one is labeled an extremist.

Shea Bradley-Farrell (fka Shea Garrison) has a legitimate PhD from Tulane. Her field of study is apparently related to the Middle East. Bradley-Farrell’s knowledge pertaining to human sexuality is on par with the average high school dropout.

Last Friday BF authored: Don’t Believe a Man Can Be a Woman? Prepare to Be Labeled an Extremist for Heritage Foundation’s blog.

I am quite certain you know the content that is about to follow. I wouldn’t necessarily call Ms. Bradley-Farrell an extremist. Defender of the faith, ignoramus and bigot are more applicable. But that’s just my humble opinion. Okay, Shea Bradley-Farrell is a religious extremist.

Some of the statements of people who torture medical science are simply astonishing:

The Biden administration, Democrats in Congress, and their media elite seem to be deeply obsessed with redefining American society and civil rights law by promoting policy and legislation that give credence to the claim that “gender identity” is fluid and subjective.

Shea Bradley-Farrell is wed to the notion that gender identity is an abstraction or a term of art. We know that because she puts the scientific term between quotation marks.

Moreover, the claim that gender identity is “fluid and subjective” is not the basis for public policy. That is the claim of religious conservatives desperate for the world to conform to ancient texts.

In point of fact gender identity is objective, not “subjective.” Shea Bradley-Farrell is quite certain — I am reasonably sure — that her gender identity is congruent with her natal sex.

However, a very small portion of the population has incongruent gender and natal sex. Those folks are as objectively certain of their gender as Ms. Bradley-Farrell is of her gender. Were that not the case there would probably be no transgender persons.

In general, the only people who refer to “fluidity” are religious conservatives who are attempting to add an esoteric touch to the concept of gender identity. Gender identity is formed by about two years of age. It is pretty resistant to change and fluidity is rare. Rare in the sense that it can make a binary change.

“The entire argument (both parts) is absurd. Indeed, it is irrational

Ms. Bradley-Farrell gets more unhinged as she refers to the Equality Act.

… biological males in female safe spaces like locker rooms and on sports teams—will be enshrined into our civil rights law. Public facilities will be forced to allow a man who “self-identifies” as a woman to use and benefit from the same facilities, programs, or funding that biological women do.

“Self-identification” means there are no legal or medical standards to reach under this legislation; if a man says he’s a woman, presto, he’s a woman.

There are two elements to the bullshit above.

First, Shea Bradley-Farrell is suggesting that trans females make cisgender females unsafe. There is no evidence to support that argument. None.

Secondly, Bradley-Farrell is implying that cisgender men will pretend to be transgender in order to have access to female facilities so that they can prey upon women and girls. There is no evidence to support that assertion either.

Aside from the lack of evidence the argument is preposterous. No one will pretend to be transgender. Bradley-Farrell and her ilk have removed that possibility through their prejudice and bigotry.

Furthermore, a man pretending to be a woman who presents as a man is not going to be welcome in female spaces. He would have no legal recourse. The entire argument (both parts) is absurd. Indeed, it is irrational.

“Professor Volokh objects to pronoun mandates. Volokh is truthful but he got carried away, in my opinion.”

Numerous states and locales have laws comparable to the Equality Act. I have never entertained an argument which began: “In Los Angeles …” or “In Boston … .” That is because the supposed consequences do not exist. An appeal to consequences — argumentum ad consequentiam — represents a logical fallacy.

The “tell.”

But this obsession with the mainstreaming of transgender ideology is part of an angry movement that goes beyond legislation to the insidious monitoring and influencing of your belief—whether it is based on religion, conscience, or science.

You can omit science from the above. Gender incongruence has been in the medical literature for well over 100 years. Conscience, too. An appeal to conscience would result in people being kind and considerate. Furthermore, the desire to be treated with decency is not “angry.”

More importantly, transgender persons are not adherents to an ideology. Transgender persons have in common a medical condition. One that can be subjectively diagnosed.

The use of the term “gender ideology” identifies the user as a religious extremist. Intellectual honesty takes a back seat to a defense of the faith. The Vatican’s version is here but it is common across conservative Christendom. It is common because it is based on scriptural literalism.

Shea Bradley-Farrell has created a shortage of kitchen sinks:

From social media bans for the “hateful conduct” of those saying (in accordance with science) that a man can’t actually be a woman to a New York Human Rights Law imposing fines of up to $250,000 for “misusing” a “preferred” pronoun, the transgender movement has become a vehicle for censorship, conformity of thought, and control.

Bradley-Farrell links to a 2016 OpEd by Eugene Volokh in the Washington Post.

“There does not exist a justifiable reason to discriminate against a transgender person in a public accommodation.”

Professor Volokh objects to pronoun mandates. Volokh is truthful but he got carried away, in my opinion. He is referring to a New York City ordinance. The ordinance — aimed primarily at employers — covers things like a systematic refusal to hire women and retaliation against someone who files a complaint for discrimination. The chances that someone would be fined for misgendering an employee are slim. $250,000? The possibility does not seem to exist. Intentionally creating a toxic work environment has consequences.

Bathroom sinks follow due to the manufactured shortage:

Shitting BullYou can also find this insidiousness of the censorship in Section 2, “Findings and Purpose,” of the Equality Act, where Congress opines on why we need the legislation. The findings read that “many people” are subjected to discrimination on the “basis of gender” because of “others’ perceptions or beliefs.” It continues, “Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.”

According to this interpretation, if you see a man and assume he’s a man, you shouldn’t do that, because that could be discrimination or a “sex-based stereotype.”

Please. Assumptions over gender are irrelevant. At issue is discrimination. The Supreme Court (somewhat) settled the issue of workplace discrimination with the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.

I write “somewhat” because it was prior to Amy Coney Barrett. Furthermore, I expect it to be tested by a self-identified religious organization.

What remains for nondiscrimination protection mostly pertains to public accommodations. There does not exist a justifiable reason to discriminate against a transgender person in a public accommodation.

“The notion that a religious belief justifies discrimination is idiotic.”

Even if someone believes that transgender persons are confused people who have made very bad choices, refusing service is unrelated to that belief. The same Eugene Volokh mentioned above filed an amicus brief — along with Professor Dale Carpenter — in favor of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the Masterpiece Cakeshop matter. The same reasoning would seem to apply to transgender persons.

The view of Volokh and Carpenter seems to have been validated by the Court’s refusal to hear the Barronelle Stutzman case. The only exception that they would make is to someone like a wedding singer. Arranging flowers and baking cakes? Not so much.

But I digress. If nothing else, BF is obtuse:

Really? How is it discrimination if any American citizen, based on belief in science, conscience, or religion—take your pick—doesn’t believe, and never will believe, that a man can be a woman, or vice versa? Or that gender is a matter of ever-changing “self-identification”?

At the risk of repeating myself, conscience should dictate kindness. An appeal to science is downright stupid. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that gender is a construct independent of natal sex.

The notion that a religious belief justifies discrimination is idiotic. The same reasoning could be applied to Jewish people. Should one be permitted to refuse service to me because I do not believe that Jesus Christ is lord and savior?

“Natasha Chart is a nobody. Women’s Liberation Front has been financed by Alliance Defending Freedom and does nothing other than promote transphobia.”

A “poor fucking Jack” is mandatory:

It may be hard to see how this insidious and continual monitoring of belief affects you until you remember Jack Phillips the baker. He has spent almost a decade fighting as a private business owner to create whatever kind of cakes he wants that agree with his Christian faith.

Idiot! Belief is irrelevant. Nondiscrimination laws govern conduct, not belief. I am waiting for some Muslim business owner to refuse service to a Christian based upon his religious beliefs. Does anyone doubt that turds will hit the turbines?

Remove hyperbole and not much remains:

It may still be difficult to see until … your doctor is forced to give a child sex-reassignment surgery;

  1. No law forces a doctor to provide a service that he or she does not already provide. A gynecologist might be required to treat a trans man but that’s it. There is no equivalent to gender-confirmation surgery.
  2. Adding to the bullshit is the fact that children are not candidates for gender-confirmation surgery. Exceptions are extremely rare.
  3. The only doctors who offer gender-confirmation surgery are specialists who opt to do so.

Militant Christianists define “projection:”

The well-known feminist Natasha Chart, former leader of the Women’s Liberation Front, says that those who disagree with the militant transgender movement, on both sides of the political aisle, feel alone, but are really the “silenced majority.”

Natasha Chart is a nobody. Women’s Liberation Front has been financed by Alliance Defending Freedom and does nothing other than promote transphobia. Given the amount of transphobic nonsense that I respond to on a daily basis, trans folks don’t seem to have been very effective at “silencing” anyone.

“Bradley-Farrell seems to embrace the idea that religious beliefs justify prejudice and discrimination. She is wrong about that as well.”

At the end of the day Shea Bradley-Farrell is trying to impose her religious beliefs on society as a whole. She believes that she is part of the majority (she repeats the claim several times). She is wrong:

Seventy-six percent of adults favor laws that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations, according to the 2020 American Values Atlas of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, which surveyed more than 10,000 adults in the U.S. from January 2020 to December.

Moreover, Shea Bradley-Farrell is an extremist; a religious extremist. She acquires that label through her own prejudice and bigotry. Furthermore, Bradley-Farrell seems to embrace the idea that religious beliefs justify prejudice and discrimination. She is wrong about that as well.

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.