Talk:Cathy Brennan/Archive1

Snerk
"unsourced statements"? y'think? there are so many things wrong with this article I'm not sure where to start.

"Pretendbians". Heh. ^_^ -- MtD Prematurely Indeterminate   21:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

call the cops section
I don't get it. She called the cops on some random protestors? What's the point of that section? It either needs to be explained better or it needs to be removed.-- 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A premise of the article is also off; Occupy's main goals are Wall Street oversight and tax fairness. Women's rights for them is a secondary goal, if even. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not Occupy Oakland, it's Occupy Oakland Patriarchy. 04:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the line If you disagree with Brennan, or insult her in some other way, she responds with words and stuff. needs some clarification-- 04:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as it made no sense. 04:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Someone" noticed this article
http://pretendbian.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/you-know-you-are-pissing-off-the-men-when-you-get-a-rational-wiki/ See also the comments. "patriarchywatch" apparently registered as Shazmafat and tried to edit Transphobia and Radical feminism. Someone may want to clear the misunderstandings (Balaam is not "the site moderator", etc.), if they think it's worth the effort.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where can I sign up for the post-modernist queer/trans army? Balaam (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dafuq did I just read? -- PsyGremlin  13:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And this may have been caused by the article being mentioned at Radscum: http://radscum.com/rational-wiki-cathy-brennan/ Note that the Radscum post appeared a day after the article was created. Note also that while the article was mostly the creation of a new editor without other contributions, the Radscum post attributes it to "RationalWiki", as most people do when they comment on a wiki article. I smell a rat cuckoo. :(--ZooGuard (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lovely -_- Тyrannis Plead 14:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I support having articles be started in user space first. As it was, the article was embarrassing.-- 15:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "You Know You Are Pissing Off The Men When You Get A Rational Wiki"? You get a RationalWiki! You get a RationalWiki! Everybody gets a RationalWiki! 18:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Goddammit, woman! Lay off the Rational Wikis! We're furious!
 * Also, I kinda mistook their site for one of those Nordic-themed "white pride" ones, what with the full-page axe. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Only a RationalWiki? I wanted a whole internet. Dammit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, they've got some grade-A stalking going on. I'm quaking. 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cripes. Тyrannis Plead 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Our pageviews are growing by an exponential rate!!!1!" -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, "We don't hate you, we hate appropriation." Sure, we hate the sin, not the sinner! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the comments:  Sophie  because liberals  21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me: "unexamined sexism is woo". EVDebs (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She has an unhealthy obsession with the word "dude;" doesn't like to approve comments that cast her remotely in a negative light, and for a lawyer has absolutely no idea what "harassment" is. 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think she (and her ilk) are just haters. They are really not that different from Fred Phelps or David Duke. Loathsome people. 23:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is one crucial difference though -- although radfem thinking sometimes (and I do stress only sometimes)leads to some very hateful places, it's at least understandable. The problem is when they confuse thinking and feeling. EVDebs (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how radfem transphobia is any more "understandable" than religious homophobia or far-right xenophobia. 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it comes from a place of relative powerlessness. Mind you, I'm not defending it -- "she who fights monsters" is my usual summation -- but there's a significant distinction between throwing a crybaby fit and righteous anger. It's just that righteousness and correctness don't always go together. EVDebs (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of homophobes and xenophobes come from places of relative powerlessness too. If you look at the far-right scene, you'll find a lot of people who come from backgrounds of poor incomes, poor educations, unstable family situations. I think if you look at the different dimensions of oppression - class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, etc. - it seems an all too common a solution to being oppressed is to look for someone else to oppress in turn. From that perspective, I don't see radfem transphobes as being that different from many homophobes or racists. 06:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hate tends to be much more "understandable" if the person harboring it is on the same end of the political spectrum as the person trying to understand. 06:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a question of societal privilege, or lack thereof, really. One could argue about whether the end result produces a distinction without a difference; I don't think it does, but similar attitudes on either side of the privilege barrier are similarly destructive either way. EVDebs (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and quite a few homophobes and racists are lacking in societal privilege. Racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, etc., tend to come from poorer and less educated backgrounds, and are underprivileged in terms of social class. It doesn't justify their racism, but it helps to explain it. Same goes for their homophobia. Homophobia is also in some cases more common among ethnic, racial or immigrant communities that are themselves underprivileged in various ways. So often homophobia or racism serves as an outlet to try to cope with lack of privilege (however counter-productively). So I struggle to see how radical feminist transphobia is really any different. 07:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There were a lot more "privileged" racists and homophobes back when racism and homophobia were socially acceptable. 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. And there's plenty of privileged radical feminists. i.e. white women from middle or upper class backgrounds with a university education. What about Cathy Brennan herself? In what ways is she privileged? 08:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Important enough?
I'm kind of curious where Cathy Brennan fits into the overall radfem picture. If she's not sufficiently important in the movement, we may as well just be writing an ED article. EVDebs (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given her current stalking of an editor here, and her attacks on Natalie Reed a while back might as well keep. Тy talk 23:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my suspicion but I don't know enough about the radfem movement to answer the question myself. Thanks. EVDebs (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently she's a columnist (not sure if it's a regular gig or not) at Baltimore Outloud, which seems to have a pretty decent readership. Here's a column that got posted today, which appears to be roughly as sane as her blog.  Can't see any books, though, but I just did an idle few minutes of Googling so there's probably stuff I missed. --Kels (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What Kels said. That link also brings up her alarmism, as she honestly thinks "the queers" and "transgender people" are trying to "annihilate" lesbians. 00:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the inheritances from Janice Raymond, that "the trannies are coming to get us, they're the oppressors!!" attitude. The increasing acceptance of trans and genderqueer voices in the LGBT communities is very threatening to the strict binary those theories require. --Kels (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Raymond and her peers's work have become articles of faith for the Brennan/Jeffreys/Verbana breed of radfem today. When you have an absolute, Manichean, prescriptive theory for How It Ought To Be, you run into trouble with, you know, the inevitable passage of time and people's lived experiences. So spake the 18-year-old girl 01:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ew, Sheila Jeffreys. The very sound of her name makes me cringe. Someone should write an article on her. Maybe I'll start one. 01:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Brennan until her rather incompetent attacks on Natalie Reed a couple of months back, she's pretty amusing in a "raving fruitcake" sort of way. Pity she's so focused on trying to hurt people. --Kels (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the UK, there's also the lovely Julie Bindel, a radfem similarly upset that time has moved on and her chosen form of bigotry (TRANNIES = TEH EVIL) actually isn't that okay any more. Not quite as active in fucking up others' lives as Brennan, but one to keep an eye on - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Category: Shyster?
She ain't selling anything, right? Not sure if it fits.... Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gender atheist
Found this. Somebody else could probably do a better job of incorporating this than I. Тy talk 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, might work as an opening quote... Balaam (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Natalie Reed certainly knows how to turn a phrase, and I appreciate the Young Frankenstein reference. --Kels (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The glasses too.  Тy talk 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The glasses too.  Тy talk 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm using the Modern skin, and the quote overlaps the info box. I think I've seen that elsewhere too, where should I post about that? --Kels (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at technical support. It's a Chrome bug that remains unresolved. 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it from align=center to margin:auto. Let me know if that fixes it. Scarlet A.pngsshole 20:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still overlapping in Chrome. Now that we know that it's just a glitch with the current version of Chrome, I reckon we should just leave stuff as is it & hope that it's fixed in the next version.  Better than moving the furniture around to compensate & then potentially putting it all back later.  20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not fixed, but it's only a minor thing so I'm not too concerned. Thanks for the effort though. --Kels (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on it as it has to filter through the caching, but I'll take a look to see if there are any other way the margins are calculated that might cause an overlap. Scarlet A.pngmoral 20:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Wow, one of the links in that post is some damned impressive reasoning. Because both god and gender identity are represented somewhere in the brain, neither of them exist, apparently. By that logic, external reality is disproved, QED! I like this game, kind of like Descartes meets neuroscience. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And weren't the radfems just arguing that gender wasn't real because it hadn't been isolated in the brain? Now that it has been isolated, it's double plus unreal? The mental acrobatics these people do to justify theory over experience are Olympics-grade. 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I'm not fond of postmodernism in general. --Kels (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't postmodernism about the primacy of personal experience over absolutist theory though? I mean, most of these anti-trans radfems see pomo as the great satan. 21:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Postmodernism is about every thought being subject to our minds and thereby biased in some form or intensity. This is why postmodernists don't write it down as straight-ahead theory. Postmodernists aren't anti-science, they are meta-science. --Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is a good reason for pomos to stay the hell away from science, because the vast majority of them come off as being just another bunch of cranks trying to put one over on the experts without really knowing what they're talking about. EVDebs (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree. Pomos trying science is like saying we don't know what a number is and than trying to solve an equation. It's destined to utterly fail. On the other hand, if you approach the humanities with a pure scientific method you're just summarising stuff. --Rutherford (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to say that radical feminists hate hate hate postmodernism because it threatens the absolute truth they believe they possess (these are the same people who called the Principia Mathematica a "rape manual"). 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, the pedantic annoying jerk in me needed to correct it. --Rutherford (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did anyone call PM a 'rape manual'? I really need to fucking read that with my own eyes! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandra Harding ("later regretted"). 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Manarchist brospace lol
I would like to think RW is one place where the misogyny raging through the skeptical community comes to a grinding halt and falls off the road, so Brennan accusing us of this is hilarious. EVDebs (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse the skeptic community and the atheist community.-- 23:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is we get accused of being shills for the feminists from MRAs. Then we get accused of being patriarchal woman-haters from these nutters. So... they can't both be right. Go figure. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bricks, if you care, and I doubt you do, from most women's point of view, skeptics adn atheist "groups" are in effect the same. It's a Man's World, as the saying goes.  You can play, but you have to find your balls to jump in.  and the groups get all queesy like if you bring up menstruation, even though it's clearly named after them, at least according to the logic of Hidenberg kid.  --[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  23:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing them. The problem is endemic to both, and is often caused by the same people being misogynist dickbags no matter which hat they're wearing at any given moment. EVDebs (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemme crack open a few beers so I can properly relax and laugh at the dumb feminazi, eh, guys? Eh? Eh? Did you watch the game yesterday? *belch* (massive massive sarcasm tag for this) Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 11:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a word I'd use... "dumb" covers it. Being right about some important things does not automatically mean you'll be right about other important things; this is true whether or not you're in a privileged position. EVDebs (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? RationalWiki isn't a bro space? I can see how how the 'manarchist' part is hilarious. After all, it's libertarianism, not anarchism, that seems to dominate the skeptics movement. However, it's alleged that 'manarchist bro space' is hilarious because of RationalWiki's takedown of *MRAs*, not anarchists. Hence I find the line in the article to be self-congratulatory blindness to male privilege. The real irony here is that this line exists after two years of Elevatorgate-induced discussion of sexism in the skeptics movement. I suggest the line be revised to show a little humility and self-awareness. How about something like: "The description of RationalWiki as a 'manarchist bro space' is hilariously uninformed. While many do believe the skeptics movement suffers from a double-serving of sexism, it's libertarianism, not anarchism, that is usually accused of dominating skeptical discussions." 'Double-serving' could link to Elevatorgate in the article on Rebecca Watson. By the way, Cathy Brennan has attacked me online since I'm a trans woman. Yes. Me personally. Yet I don't find anything hilarious at all in her use of the term 'bro space'. LilyDoesSF (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't much like your suggest that a comment about RationalWiki be considered as a comment about the "skeptics movement" at large or vice-versa, but also don't much like the smug attitude in the article that RW automatically can't be considered a "brospace" because of clashes with MRAs. I suggest just leaving the Brennan quote without the snide riposte & let the reader decide whether they agree with her on this.  01:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But I thought we were supposed to be snide! (Drink, I guess?)


 * I don't want to edit war when there seems to be a consensus against my contribution, but I stand by the joke's intent. I'm not saying RW is perfect on gender issues, but when I think "bro space," that sounds to me not like someone who's merely ignorant of privilege but rather who goes out of the way to defend the more ridiculous anti-feminist parts of the men's rights movement, and we definitely aren't that.  And anyway, like Armondikov said, they can't both be right.


 * Lily, I'm sorry to hear that you've been attacked by Brennan, though I must admit I'm not surprised. She is a loathsome, disgusting person.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weaseloid here. Any self-reference in the mainspace needs to be handled very carefully. I don't particularly like hanging quotes with no commentary under them, though. It could very well suggest it's true - which even though RW isn't perfect (nothing is) is generally considered to be complete bollocks. Pointing out the MRA accusations of us being radical feminists would get the message across, I believe. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 15:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to write it yourself? Apparently I lack humility and self-awareness.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  04:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

yikes
She allegedly outs trans people that comment on her blog -- 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Silly me
I saw the name "Rational Wiki" and didn't realize that the articles were invective-laden opinion pieces. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop googling yourself, Brennan
 * You are objectively a bad person
 * -- "Shut up, Brx." 02:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think this IP is Brennan? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Call it intuition. Maybe I'm wrong.  Who cares?  Besides, she's certainly googling herself, or she wouldn't have started on us in the first place.  And she's definitely a bad person.-- "Shut up, Brx." 04:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of google alerts? Why would she randomly show up now, anyway? You intuition isn't very good, clearly, and I'd read ToP's post again to see why it would be a bad idea. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 03:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [[File:Brennan RW.png]]
 * Great success! 03:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No more drinking, please, mercy! Scarlet A.pngpostate 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maryland or New Hampshire?
The article crrently states that Cathy lives in Maryland, but this Care2 profile named Cathy Brennan (which may or may not be Cathy "bugbrennan" Brennan) says New Hampshire. Is this person the same as the one in the article? I'm not sure; I've never seen a picture of her. Equivamp (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it make a difference? We don't need to adopt her tactics.  19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but if it's going to say her state pf residence shouldn't it be correct? &#91;&#91;User:Equivamp&#124;Equivamp&#93;&#93; - &#60;small&#62;(&#91;&#91;User talk:Equivamp&#124;talk&#93;&#93;)&#60;/small&#62; (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement that she works for a law firm in New Hampshire is cited to the law firm's website. I assume that there are good reasons for linking this Cathy Brennan to the blogger/activist; certainly the photo from the firm's site is used on various blog posts about Brennan around the internet.  I can't view the Care2 page you linked to as I don't have a Care2 account; which makes me think this is something we shouldn't be citing as it's presumably not created for public viewing.  20:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Snerk
Perhaps I should be pleased that Brennan's horrible gallery of trans-shame is gone, but a lot of the references are now broken. Anyone want to go through and hunt down archive.org links? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention in funding campaign
This page is mentioned here by a person who is going up against Brennan. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

TERF Definition
I originally linked the TERF reference to because it thoroughly defines what a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) is. Someone changed the link to point to the Rational Wiki page for "Radical Feminism". This is incorrect. Not all Radical Feminists are trans exclusionary. This is a specific branch of radical feminism who fights against the rights of trans people.
 * Yeah, that's what's explained in the radical feminism article. Your reference probably belongs on that page rather than this one.  Either way, please don't put footnotes in section headers.    19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

'Cathy Brennan contacted my doctor'
We've now got two sections on the same subject. I'm guessing they're about the same person/incident, but haven't checked the sources as I'm at work right now. Can we please merge these into one section. If they're separate incidents, they're still best dealt with together because of the obvious similarity. 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitter accounts
How are these being identified as Cathy Brennan? I'm sceptical about TheLesbianMafia one that's just been added. 07:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * TheLesbianMafia has been removed. This is not a Brennan account. --Angrywoman (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing
http://lgbtweekly.com/2015/09/03/doxxed-by-cathy-brennan/ Worth adding? 16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)