A Test for the Media
Sunday mornings I usually waste a bunch of time talking about whatever thing is on my mind that week, some music I like or something that happened to me. But this week I am thinking we have something serious to talk about. (Though I must say, Aaron Neville's soulful "I Shall Be Released" on Sunday morning WPFW, rising above the homely white noise of crackling bacon, is just ... perfect.)
I know that people in the media read this blog, and I want them to think carefully about the moment in Montgomery County history that we are coming to.
Let the record show that at this time, November 18th, 2007, it is obvious to observers that a strategy to deceive is in place and is being perpetrated; anyone who falls for it is either hopelessly ignorant, or is a willing accomplice. It will not be possible in the future to declare that you didn't see it coming: everybody sees it coming.
We are seeing a nefarious and blatant attempt by a tiny minority of people to change the subject on an important issue. Their change of subject will be sensationalistic, it will be simple, it will appeal to consumers of the news media at a base level, but it is a lie.
We need to see our media rise to the situation. We need the press to inform the public as this situation unfolds, not to propagate lies but to report them in their full context.
A new bill is being adopted in Montgomery County, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. It simply adds another term to the existing law. You may or may not believe in the usefulness of laws about discrimination, and you may or may not agree that transgender people need protection; those are debates the public can and should engage in, and are not the topic at the moment.
Nobody in their right mind believes that this bill is about men lurking in ladies rooms.
We are seeing an energetic attempt to re-frame the law, to make people believe that the bill legalizes perverted men lurking in ladies room. We have seen one of the leaders of the local Republican Party saying that this bill will result in "little girls ... showing up dead all over the county." We have seen the CRC claiming that women will be unsafe in public showers because of perverted exhibitionists and voyeurs and transgender individuals in transition, with male genitals, exposing themselves in ladies rooms and peeking at undressed ladies and girls.
This re-framing project is a pure work of fiction, a complete change of subject from the actual bill it is intended to oppose. These groups want to retain the right to discriminate, but they know they can't just say that straight out. So they have latched on to a frightening image and are trying desperately to convince the public that this image will become reality if discrimination against transgender people is prohibited.
To pull this off, the groups that are undertaking this project need the complicity of the press. The law says you can't discriminate in certain situations, but the CRC and their colleagues need somebody to publish the fiction that the law is about the violation of privacy in ladies rooms.
In our several years of fighting this fight in Montgomery County, we have met a couple of biased reporters. None that are working this beat now, but it is not unheard of. There are a couple of media outlets in the Washington area with an agenda, I'm not worried about that, somebody'll read that junk, watch that, listen to that, whatever, it's a business. I'm talking about the objective media, the sources that the public depends on for information so we can make decisions in our lives and understand what's going on in the world around us.
It makes an easy headline, angry people with inflammatory phrases on signs make a quick and easily understood photograph. The interview with the outraged parent -- easy, stick a microphone in front of them and they'll give you some attention-grabbing video, red-faced and indignant, speaking in short, easily edited slogans. I can understand, as the crew hops in and out of the van, going from scene to scene, why they like this sort of story. Perverted men in the ladies rooms! Live at eleven. It is tempting.
There is a certain dangerous philosophy of journalism that says reporters should just repeat what happens without interpretation, as if there was no sensible narrative to tie the facts together. So if ten people have a demonstration, a newspaper should report that, and maybe interview a few of them, and report some quotes. But when the people demonstrating are lying, when they are the tiniest bizarre minority of the community, when they are simply making up a story to scare people, journalists have a higher calling -- their higher calling is to inform the public. They aren't there to take dictation, and when somebody lies it is okay -- it is the journalists' responsibility -- to interject a paragraph that states the facts of a situation.
The pro-discrimination groups seem to be lining up along two lines of attack. We saw a letter the other day from a group out in California calling itself "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," threatening to sue the county if this law goes into effect. I'm no lawyer, but I'm not seeing a big opening there. There are lots of places with the same kind of law, and I don't know who will have standing to sue if nothing happens, no men lurk in the women's showers, which is what will happen. But whatever, it's back to the old CRC strategy of suing, "merit or no merit," it will force the county to spend money and it will attract attention.
The second line of attack is an attempted referendum. This is where it gets more interesting, and where the media come into play. Most people in Montgomery County believe in being fair and kind, and are opposed to discrimination. We elected the current County Council members by wide margins, and we elected a progressive County Executive who has taken an active position in supporting LGBT rights; there's no doubt what kind of county this is, what kind of people live here.
On the other hand, nobody in any county wants perverted men lurking around ladies rooms.
You can bet that the pro-discrimination groups are getting petitions written up, and you can bet how they're phrasing this. We haven't seen the petitions, but ... here's a clue. If you go to the web site for the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (just use www.teachthefacts.com if you don't have the URL), you'll see a big red box that says:
The bill 23-07 is about discrimination against people on the basis of gender identity. The CRC is trying to change the subject to something scary. "Legalized indecent exposure." Anybody who falls for that is a fool.
This is a test for our area's journalists. I understand that if the petitions get so-many signatures, or if a court date is actually reached, the media need to carry the story, but they will need to be extremely careful how they report it.
This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms, nothing to do with indecent exposure -- absolutely nothing to do with little girls being killed. It is about discrimination against a group of people who do not fit traditional gender stereotypes.
As this anti-transgender pogrom unfolds, we the public need the press to be thorough, accurate, perceptive, we need the media to be our ears and eyes and to tell us what we would actually see if we were there at the demonstrations, if they knocked on our door with a petition. Would we see rational people backed with facts? Or would we see people who are terrified and threatened by people who are different from them? Would we see humble soldiers for Christ spreading righteousness, or would we see a gang of bigots? We need the press to tell us, accurately, objectively, and thoroughly, what's going on.
This story has all the qualities that appeal to the worst in journalism; it will be a test, we will see which media outlets are informing the citizenry, and which are willing to inflame them for a buck.
I know that people in the media read this blog, and I want them to think carefully about the moment in Montgomery County history that we are coming to.
Let the record show that at this time, November 18th, 2007, it is obvious to observers that a strategy to deceive is in place and is being perpetrated; anyone who falls for it is either hopelessly ignorant, or is a willing accomplice. It will not be possible in the future to declare that you didn't see it coming: everybody sees it coming.
We are seeing a nefarious and blatant attempt by a tiny minority of people to change the subject on an important issue. Their change of subject will be sensationalistic, it will be simple, it will appeal to consumers of the news media at a base level, but it is a lie.
We need to see our media rise to the situation. We need the press to inform the public as this situation unfolds, not to propagate lies but to report them in their full context.
A new bill is being adopted in Montgomery County, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. It simply adds another term to the existing law. You may or may not believe in the usefulness of laws about discrimination, and you may or may not agree that transgender people need protection; those are debates the public can and should engage in, and are not the topic at the moment.
Nobody in their right mind believes that this bill is about men lurking in ladies rooms.
We are seeing an energetic attempt to re-frame the law, to make people believe that the bill legalizes perverted men lurking in ladies room. We have seen one of the leaders of the local Republican Party saying that this bill will result in "little girls ... showing up dead all over the county." We have seen the CRC claiming that women will be unsafe in public showers because of perverted exhibitionists and voyeurs and transgender individuals in transition, with male genitals, exposing themselves in ladies rooms and peeking at undressed ladies and girls.
This re-framing project is a pure work of fiction, a complete change of subject from the actual bill it is intended to oppose. These groups want to retain the right to discriminate, but they know they can't just say that straight out. So they have latched on to a frightening image and are trying desperately to convince the public that this image will become reality if discrimination against transgender people is prohibited.
To pull this off, the groups that are undertaking this project need the complicity of the press. The law says you can't discriminate in certain situations, but the CRC and their colleagues need somebody to publish the fiction that the law is about the violation of privacy in ladies rooms.
In our several years of fighting this fight in Montgomery County, we have met a couple of biased reporters. None that are working this beat now, but it is not unheard of. There are a couple of media outlets in the Washington area with an agenda, I'm not worried about that, somebody'll read that junk, watch that, listen to that, whatever, it's a business. I'm talking about the objective media, the sources that the public depends on for information so we can make decisions in our lives and understand what's going on in the world around us.
It makes an easy headline, angry people with inflammatory phrases on signs make a quick and easily understood photograph. The interview with the outraged parent -- easy, stick a microphone in front of them and they'll give you some attention-grabbing video, red-faced and indignant, speaking in short, easily edited slogans. I can understand, as the crew hops in and out of the van, going from scene to scene, why they like this sort of story. Perverted men in the ladies rooms! Live at eleven. It is tempting.
There is a certain dangerous philosophy of journalism that says reporters should just repeat what happens without interpretation, as if there was no sensible narrative to tie the facts together. So if ten people have a demonstration, a newspaper should report that, and maybe interview a few of them, and report some quotes. But when the people demonstrating are lying, when they are the tiniest bizarre minority of the community, when they are simply making up a story to scare people, journalists have a higher calling -- their higher calling is to inform the public. They aren't there to take dictation, and when somebody lies it is okay -- it is the journalists' responsibility -- to interject a paragraph that states the facts of a situation.
The pro-discrimination groups seem to be lining up along two lines of attack. We saw a letter the other day from a group out in California calling itself "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," threatening to sue the county if this law goes into effect. I'm no lawyer, but I'm not seeing a big opening there. There are lots of places with the same kind of law, and I don't know who will have standing to sue if nothing happens, no men lurk in the women's showers, which is what will happen. But whatever, it's back to the old CRC strategy of suing, "merit or no merit," it will force the county to spend money and it will attract attention.
The second line of attack is an attempted referendum. This is where it gets more interesting, and where the media come into play. Most people in Montgomery County believe in being fair and kind, and are opposed to discrimination. We elected the current County Council members by wide margins, and we elected a progressive County Executive who has taken an active position in supporting LGBT rights; there's no doubt what kind of county this is, what kind of people live here.
On the other hand, nobody in any county wants perverted men lurking around ladies rooms.
You can bet that the pro-discrimination groups are getting petitions written up, and you can bet how they're phrasing this. We haven't seen the petitions, but ... here's a clue. If you go to the web site for the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (just use www.teachthefacts.com if you don't have the URL), you'll see a big red box that says:
*Action Alert -- Legalized Indecent Exposure *
Gender Identity Bill 23-07
Click here for full information
The bill 23-07 is about discrimination against people on the basis of gender identity. The CRC is trying to change the subject to something scary. "Legalized indecent exposure." Anybody who falls for that is a fool.
This is a test for our area's journalists. I understand that if the petitions get so-many signatures, or if a court date is actually reached, the media need to carry the story, but they will need to be extremely careful how they report it.
This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms, nothing to do with indecent exposure -- absolutely nothing to do with little girls being killed. It is about discrimination against a group of people who do not fit traditional gender stereotypes.
As this anti-transgender pogrom unfolds, we the public need the press to be thorough, accurate, perceptive, we need the media to be our ears and eyes and to tell us what we would actually see if we were there at the demonstrations, if they knocked on our door with a petition. Would we see rational people backed with facts? Or would we see people who are terrified and threatened by people who are different from them? Would we see humble soldiers for Christ spreading righteousness, or would we see a gang of bigots? We need the press to tell us, accurately, objectively, and thoroughly, what's going on.
This story has all the qualities that appeal to the worst in journalism; it will be a test, we will see which media outlets are informing the citizenry, and which are willing to inflame them for a buck.
posted by JimK at 9:27 AM
83 Comments:
The federal EDNA law has an exemption for religous organizations and places of shared nudity.Our bill has no exemption.
Indeed, they were going to explicitly include bathrooms and lockerrooms until we made them pull it out. So, what we are saying is accurate Jim. The council is lying and spinning, and the details and legal analysis of this bill WHICH STILL lets "humans with male genitals" into ladies rooms as you were so kind to point out. Most of the county, contrary to the TTF hopes, still believe that anyone with a penis is a man.
You guys don't. You are the fringe group here, sorry.
Most of the media is biased and quite on your side, Jim. You know that. But even they are a little taken aback by this.
Want a good test of the accuracy and fairness of the media ? The gazette ran a story on the United Church of Rockville sending a petition of 69 names to the BOE in support of the curriculum. However, they didn't publish that the Catholic church came out and called the curriculum IMMORAL. That's right IMMORAL. They put that in a circular distributed to all the churches and its posted on the website of a few of them as well as ours. Pretty strong words. Isn't Sharon Cox a Catholic ? I wonder if she is proud of herself and what her parish thinks of her ?
Theresa
"However, they didn't publish that the Catholic church came out and called the curriculum IMMORAL."
U.S. Says Pope Immune From Molestation Lawsuit
ROME — The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.
[T]he Vatican Embassy in Washington had asked the U.S. government to issue the immunity suggestion and do everything it could to get the case dismissed.
The lawsuit alleges Ratzinger, who headed the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before becoming pope, was involved in a conspiracy to hide Patino-Arango's crimes and help him escape prosecution."
Have you always considered child rapist protectors to be an authority on morality?
:::
"what we are saying is accurate Jim. The council is lying and spinning"
Once again:
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."
You are clearly a bigot, Theresa.
Before this legislation was considered, there were women (not just humans, but women) with male genitals using the women's bathroom without consequence to anyone. Ever. Anywhere. You know this because you have never produced one iota of evidence to the contrary.
Since you lost the sex-ed battle, you've decided to turn on us, because most people still don't understand the issues of human sexuality with which I've lived my entire life. You don't care, however. You are no more likely to be in a bathroom at the same time with a trans woman tomorrow than you were yesterday, but now it's a threat to you and to little girls everywhere.
You're not going to change science with your fears. You're not going to change medicine with your screeds. We will still continue to exist, which is what really bothers you, as you so thoughtfully pointed out.
You don't want to have to think about us? Then don't.
And whether you like it or not, the bill still is silent on bathroom issues. Nothing has changed between what was before and what will be in three months. It is not up to the Council to make detailed regulations; it is up to the Executive branch.
And contrary to your lying and misrepresentations , all the amendment was intended to do was to distinguish full-time trans women undergoing transition from cross-dressers, those MEN whom you so fear. So all you managed to do was to make things worse for your fevered mind.
If this ever gets to the HRC, they will probably rule as other jurisdictions have, and we will live with the consequences. All of us, including you.
Most of the county, contrary to the TTF hopes, still believe that anyone with a penis is a man.
You guys don't. You are the fringe group here, sorry.
Only an irrational person would think that a fringe group is aligned with the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and many more mental health and medical professional associations. No Theresa, yours is the fringe group, aligned with the quacks at NARTH. Real doctors know that intersexuality exists and deal with it on a rational basis.
Your OCD is kicking in again, after you decided I am going back to working on the referendum, this is waste of time.
Theresa November 17, 2007 1:48 PM
I don't think religious organizations should be exempt from this anti-discrimination law. The church has long been used to spread hate and lies... Like when "Columbus" came to the Americas and the time period of black slavery. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.
Jim, this morning's post is a masterpiece of humor. This is why those of us in the opposition keep reading your blog. The entertainment level is so high.
Well, I'll do a dissection of it from a responsible point of view tonight. More important, for now, is the music comment:
I know you share my passion for good gospel music. You should check out "Gotta Serve Somebody: The Gospel Songs of Bob Dylan." It is an album with some of the biggest stars in gospel music doing songs all written by Bob Dylan. Dylan himself only sings on one song, a duet with Mavis Staples. I thought of it because of your comment about Aaron Neville singing a Dylan song. On this album, Neville does a terrific version of Dylan's great song, "The Saving Grace That's Over Me." It would sound perfect over "the homely white noise of crackling bacon." Check it out. If you're not going to church on Sunday morning, this album would be the next best way to hear the gospel.
"the homely white noise of crackling bacon"
You'll probably hear from the pork association for this little piece of slander. Personally, I've always agreed with Bill Clinton's famous declaration:
"I do so dearly love bacon!"
Dana, Theresa is not a bigot because she holds a different view than you. That does not make her a bigot. Chastising others for calling people names is exactly what your colleagues were complaining about in the other thread and lo and behold you are doing the same thing. Maybe you need a lesson on tolerance.
Anonymous, Theresa has commented here many times before. She defines the word "bigot."
Merle
Anon, I have tried, I have really tried to to watch my tongue. I have given Theresa many opportunities to meet and talk with me, but she has refused. What do you call that?
Is she entitled to a different opinion? Of course she is. Is she entitled to lie? No. Is she entitled to associate me in the public eye with predators? No. Pedophiles? No. That is bigotry.
Is she uncomfortable with pre-op trans women? Yes. Does that make her a bigot? No.
She wants to not have to think about the possibility of me. Does that make her a bigot? Yes.
She wants her sensibilities protected. Does that make her a bigot? No.
She wants to deny me my existence. Does that make her a bigot? Yes. She wants to put me in physical danger because she doesn't want to think that people like me exist. Does that make her a bigot? Yes.
There have been plenty of opportunities for dialogue, but she doesn't have the courage to meet with me. Other communities totaling a population of 104 million have worked this out. She thinks she's special? No, sorry. She's not. She's a coward.
"She wants to not have to think about the possibility of me. "
I didn't say that. What I said was I didn't want to think about a pre-op Trans woman with male anatomy being in my female lockerroom (supposed to be reserved for women only) while I am changing and exposed. Or my 17 year old daughter who frequents the gym on her own having to worry about the same thing. And the fact that whatever person with male parts who wants to can now parade in my female lockerroom and the owner of the establishment probably won't stop them because they are afraid of getting sued - which puts myself and my daughter in danger. I resent that.
And that's makes me a bigot ?
Please.
Theresa
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
~Joseph Goebbles
:::
Poor persecuted supremacist said, yet again...
"lockerroom
changing
exposed
gym
male parts
parade
lockerroom
sued
danger"
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam):
"if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it. There are some net.kooks who keeping reposting the same articles to Usenet, presumably in hopes it will have that effect."
"We are seeing a nefarious and blatant attempt by a tiny minority of people to change the subject on an important issue. Their change of subject will be sensationalistic, it will be simple, it will appeal to consumers of the news media at a base level, but it is a lie."
CRC been saying the same thing since the beginning when a TTF officer created this bill. CRC has many objections but the most egregious part of the bill is that it will force business owners to allow males who dress as women to use women's bathrooms.
"We need to see our media rise to the situation. We need the press to inform the public as this situation unfolds, not to propagate lies but to report them in their full context."
And what is the lie you feel might be propagated by the media?
The real liars are the council members who, after CRC publicized the bathroom provision, dropped the amendment which said this explicitly and tried to convince the public that the restroom provisions wouldn't apply but now admit that this is the actual intent of the bill.
"A new bill is being adopted in Montgomery County, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. It simply adds another term to the existing law."
In addition to adding this term, it also defines it saying gender is whatever one feels like. Since only one person can truly know how a person feels, this basically turns gender into a club you join. Effeminate gays will now be able to able to use women's restrooms in any establishment and the owner will be powerless to prevent it because the MC government will say that anyone is a woman if they say they feel like one.
Of course this is also true of the employment and rental portions of the bill too. What to stop guys from going the Klinger or John Ritter route pretending to feel like a women so they will get preference for a job or apartment.
"Nobody in their right mind believes that this bill is about men lurking in ladies rooms."
People in their right mind believe this is one of the many unfortunate things that would be enabled by this bill.
"We are seeing an energetic attempt to re-frame the law, to make people believe that the bill legalizes perverted men lurking in ladies room. We have seen one of the leaders of the local Republican Party saying that this bill will result in "little girls ... showing up dead all over the county." We have seen the CRC claiming that women will be unsafe in public showers because of perverted exhibitionists and voyeurs and transgender individuals in transition, with male genitals, exposing themselves in ladies rooms and peeking at undressed ladies and girls."
These are all possible consequences of not allowing business owners to set their own policies regarding their bathrooms.
"This re-framing project is a pure work of fiction, a complete change of subject from the actual bill it is intended to oppose."
If so, then why doesn't the County Council shut CRC up and amend the bill to say it shouldn't be construed to create a right for biological males to use women's restrooms.
"These groups want to retain the right to discriminate, but they know they can't just say that straight out."
I don't think anyone has hidden the fact that they don't believe the bill should pass. Business owners may have legitimate reasons to not want to hire guys who dress like women. There are positions where that wouldn't be appropriate. It should be left to their discretion.
"So they have latched on to a frightening image and are trying desperately to convince the public that this image will become reality if discrimination against transgender people is prohibited."
The Council members themselves agree that biological men will have the right to use women's rooms under this bill.
"It makes an easy headline, angry people with inflammatory phrases on signs make a quick and easily understood photograph. The interview with the outraged parent -- easy, stick a microphone in front of them and they'll give you some attention-grabbing video, red-faced and indignant, speaking in short, easily edited slogans."
Yes, TTF would love it if you didn't publicize the real reaction of the public to this bill. An old ruse of theirs is to pretend that the general public in MC supports a radical gay agenda.
I can understand, as the crew hops in and out of the van, going from scene to scene, why they like this sort of story. Perverted men in the ladies rooms! Live at eleven. It is tempting.
"There is a certain dangerous philosophy of journalism that says reporters should just repeat what happens without interpretation, as if there was no sensible narrative to tie the facts together. So if ten people have a demonstration, a newspaper should report that, and maybe interview a few of them, and report some quotes. But when the people demonstrating are lying, when they are the tiniest bizarre minority of the community, when they are simply making up a story to scare people, journalists have a higher calling -- their higher calling is to inform the public. They aren't there to take dictation, and when somebody lies it is okay -- it is the journalists' responsibility -- to interject a paragraph that states the facts of a situation."
Jim, you don't have a PhD in Journalism. Stop trying to tell professionals how to do their jobs.
"The bill 23-07 is about discrimination against people on the basis of gender identity. The CRC is trying to change the subject to something scary. "Legalized indecent exposure." Anybody who falls for that is a fool."
Again, Council members themselves have conceded that this bill will enable men who dress like women to use women's restrooms over the objections of the owners of the restroom.
"This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms,"
How many times can the same lie be repeated in one post? Some men will be allowed in all women's rooms in the county under this bill.
"nothing to do with indecent exposure -- absolutely nothing to do with little girls being killed. It is about discrimination against a group of people who do not fit traditional gender stereotypes."
And not letting a guy who says he feels like a lady use the women's room is one of the types of "discrimination" the bill is aimed at.
"As this anti-transgender pogrom unfolds,"
Wow! Now Jim really takes off into La-La Land. Opposing a law letting men use women's restrooms is the equivalent of a massacre of innocents?
This is an example of why TTF qualifies as a radical fringe group.
"we the public need the press to be thorough, accurate, perceptive,"
Indeed, we do.
What I said was I didn't want to think about a pre-op Trans woman with male anatomy being in my female lockerroom (supposed to be reserved for women only) while I am changing and exposed.
So don't think about it, Theresa! Surely you realize that in all the years you've been hanging out at your "upscale gym with a steam room" no trans woman has EVER exposed herself to you.
There is therapy available for people who cannot control their obsessive irrational fearful thoughts. Get some.
I've said it, Theresa, and Aunt Bea, said it -- just don't think about it. It hasn't happened to you, and it won't happen to you. It has never happened in this country, and this bill won't make it happen. And you know it. The bill is SILENT on this issue and earlier law is operative. So stop making things up and calling the Council "liars." "Public exposure" is still public exposure, and "indecency" is still indecency. Raising the specter of being sued is old-time Republican propaganda. I'm sure the County would take the time to put you at ease on this issue, but you'd lose your soapbox, so I know you won't accede to that, either.
You said this "Parading around the female lockerroom." That, my dear, is bigotry. You could have said, "become inadvertently exposed," or something of the sort, but you didn't. You always revert to something like this, where you are implying that we are perverts. If you weren't a bigot, you wouldn't speak this way.
I've spoken to a number of people who have been agitated by you and your friends, and I've allayed their fears. How could I do that? Because they were ignorant, they admitted it, and they were willing to listen. They didn't come to the dialogue with a bias as you have. They did not assume trans women were perverts, as you do. And you repeatedly make that clear.
You still haven't answered my question -- do you want trans men with vaginas changing next to you at Bethesda Sport and Health? Or do you want all of us to find a transgender health club somewhere so you can put your mind at ease?
I hope your daughter doesn't share your prejudices, but that you are speaking for her without her permission.
Andrea- not anon
N.B. Anon and Theresa- you are both pathetic. There is no point in explaining or discussing anything to/with either of you. Why don't you two get your own blog and write to each other.
Anonymous, you come close to answering one of my main questions about all this: do these people really believe this crap?
You give a convincing performance. I would be willing to conclude, reading your comments, that yes, you really believe that banning discrimination against transgender people will create a real threat to women and children. In other words, you aren't just pretending to be nuts, you really are nuts.
The fact is, nobody knows what the nondiscrimination law is now, and nobody thinks about it when they decide to go to the bathroom. You gotta pee, you go in, close the door, and pee. Changing this law will not change a single thing. Nobody is going to go into the ladies room now who isn't already. There's no problem now, and there won't be any problem when this law goes into effect.
I am fascinated by your passionate defense of a delusion, and am curious to see just how far you guys are going to be able to take this. It all pivots on the cooperation of the press.
JimK
"I didn't say that. What I said was I didn't want to think about a pre-op Trans woman with male anatomy being in my female lockerroom...which puts myself and my daughter in danger. I resent that.
And that's makes me a bigot ?"
::
Bigot: a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
Prejudiced: 1) preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2) unjust behavior formed on such a basis.
::
So yes. Demanding that other citizens be put in PHYSICAL danger, for the sole purpose of protecting yourself from the “danger” of your own thoughts (your ‘prejudice,’ what you have ‘pre-judged’ to be true), makes you a bigot.
As has been noted countless times before, and as Dr. Beyer just said again:
"Before this legislation was considered, there were women (not just humans, but women) with male genitals using the women's bathroom without consequence to anyone. Ever. Anywhere. You know this because you have never produced one iota of evidence to the contrary.
You are no more likely to be in a bathroom at the same time with a trans woman tomorrow than you were yesterday, but now it's a threat to you and to little girls everywhere."
:::
So it’s also the timing of your concern Theresa that makes it so revoltingly disingenuous. Because the only thing that WILL change is the ability for supremacists like you to OPENLY discriminate in any way shape or form that your bigoted little minds desire.
Your locker room fantasy “threat.” is a red herring, plain as day, to hide the ugliness of your motives from public view. Those motives being the eventual imprisonment and execution of all LGBT Americans. Laws to protect fair housing and employment opportunities for transgendered citizens tend to send the message that they deserve to be treated fairly. So what do you people do? Demonize transgendered persons as child predators in order to send the message that they deserve to be treated like criminals. And what do we do with child predators, we execute them.
People like you, the CRC, PFOX, FLN, and all the other “family” hate groups, would re-enact and enforce (but only for LGBTs) sodomy laws in a heartbeat if you could. That’s the imprisonment part. The CRC also quotes the Bible on it’s website, but only in regard to homosexuality, which is a clear endorsement and promotion of genocide – in the name of Jesus:
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
There you have it. The CRC believes that they can kill us, AND that it will be our fault when they do. They just want to make it legal first.
The only thing standing in the way of fulfilling that Biblical mandate is that "wretched" Constitution that protects those of us who are “inferior” to you, from you.
Not all people who feel the way you do identify themselves as Christian you say? Well I’ve got news for them. Just switch KKK with Christian, and African American with atheism or any other religion:
From Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:
African-American pastor Gregory Daniels: "If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them."
A letter to Pastor Daniels from an African-American woman: "What do you think they gonna do to you after the ride?"
:::
Supremacism: Beliefs and ideas:
If someone believes something is true whilst someone else believes it is false, each will probably regard the evidence and reasoning for his or her belief to be superior (more informed, more considered) than that of the other. For instance, if person X believes the Earth is flat whilst person Y believes it isn't, X would probably consider the evidence and reasoning for his or her belief to be superior to that of Y.
Supremacism, however, goes much further. A supremacist not only holds that any evidence and reasoning for his or her beliefs is superior to any other, but that those holding such beliefs have rights over those who do not.
:::
And for the record, I'm a supremacist too. I believe that logic, reason and truth are superior tools for decision making than are fantasies based on fear.
I also believe that equal opportunity for all is a superior ethic toward the goal of maximizing freedom for all, as opposed to accomplishing that goal via special rights for religious supremacists.
These various "anonymous" bloggers, in the name of Christian charity and values, have absolutely trashed the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Typical of their hypocrisy, they "pick and choose" which "moral precepts" they want to adhere to and conveniently forget the others. If they profess to be Christians they need to go back to Sunday school and start all over. Their hatred condemns them to eternal damnation. Vile Hypocrites!
"Anonymous" said: "Effeminate gays will now be able to able to use women's restrooms in any establishment and the owner will be powerless to prevent it because the MC government will say that anyone is a woman if they say they feel like one." As if any gay man (effiminate or masculine...whatever those labels mean) would be interested in going into a women's rest room. An incredibly ignorant, ludicrous, and infantile statement...meant, no doubt, to elicit FEAR. You really do HATE gay men (women, too, I suspect), don't you? That's what all of this froathing at the mouth campaign by the CRCers is all about...hatred of GLBT people. Pitiful!
Mr./Ms/Mrs. "Anonymous" has said (in his/her diatribe telling us why he/she favors discrimination in the public arena): "Business owners may have legitimate reasons to not want to hire guys who dress like women. There are positions where that wouldn't be appropriate. It should be left to their discretion." Absolutely...there are lots of business owners of your persuasion who would like not to hire women, Blacks, immigrants who have become citizens, Jews, GLBTs, maybe even Methodists, and countless others (in the name of their own perceived legitimacy) who make them uncomfortable. It is for this exact reason why there are laws to protect those who are in the minority against bigots and haters like you.
R.T.
Here in our workroom we have been having some discussion (or I would say, lectures) about whether the natural position of a toilet seat is up or down. My suggestion is that the singular occupancy bathroon, room 459A, which is labelled with the little guy and a wheechair, be the location for up toilet seats, and that room 459B (labelled with the little gal and the wheechair) be the place for the down toilet seats. A serious bathroom controversy, and people have discussed such issues as "respect", but no one has says anyone else is connected with child molesters or peeping toms (is there such a person as a peeping sara?). Perhaps Virginia's bigots are more polite than those in MoCo; but then again, we exported Regina to y'all.
rrjr
What Jim, Dr Beyer and their various irrational minions obscure, with their allusions to Nazis and KKK and bigotry and et al, is that all CRC suggests is to maintain the status quo and not enact the new discrimination laws proposed by Dr Beyer’s boss, Councilman Trachtenberg. Does anyone really believe that the current state of affairs is anything resembling a fascist dictatorship?
Discrimination laws impose burdens on society and have unintended effects. The threshhold for resorting to these type of laws should be high. Racial discrimination, for example, was once rampant in our society and caused real deprivation. We are still in transition to a society where racial discrimination will be, basically, an irrelevancy and, so, these type of laws are still necessary for racial discrimination.
There is no evidence of a widespread problem, however, with discrimination against those who want to change genders and, even if there were, there is no consensus that it is an area where discrimination may not, in some circumstances, be justified. Few people, for example, believe that a business owner should be compelled to allow biological males to use their women’s rooms or hire someone for a public relations position who dresses outlandishly. Better to leave this area to individual judgment. Certainly, if public opinion is as TTF asserts, this would not be an unreasonable hardship.
Theresa said:
"Most of the county, contrary to the TTF hopes, still believe that anyone with a penis is a man.
You guys don't. You are the fringe group here, sorry."
Anon-B said:
"Only an irrational person would think that a fringe group is aligned with the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and many more mental health and medical professional associations. No Theresa, yours is the fringe group,"
Actually, anon-B, none of those groups have endorsed the idea that one's gender is other than their biology indicates. The APA, as a matter of fact, lists transgenderism as a mental dysfunction.
Theresa said "the fact that whatever person with male parts who wants to can now parade in my female lockerroom and the owner of the establishment probably won't stop them because they are afraid of getting sued - which puts myself and my daughter in danger. I resent that.
And that's makes me a bigot ?"
Of course you're a bigot Theresa. You just made the unfounded statement that transwomen are a danger to you and your daughter - that's a bigoted lie. You made the unfounded statement that transwomen are going to "parade" their naked bodies in front of you, that's a bigoted lie as well. You are a bigot.
Anon,
You're wrong, again. This bill, as all other such bills, allows for dress codes FOR EVERYONE. Trans women dress like other women; trans men dress like other men. That's why you would have a serious problem if you were able to force trans men with female genitals to use the women's rooms. This bill specifically does not allow for cross-dressing on the job.
As for the APA, they do not list GID as a mental disorder. It is a mental condition, like all other mental conditions, and is an illness only when it cause severe, prolonged distress.
The treatment, accepted by virtually the entire medical profession, is just the same, strict, medico-legal protocol that I underwent, and which at the time didn't seem to bother the likes of Theresa.
So making those claims is nothing more than lying and fear-mongering, and it will come back to bite you.
Anonymous said "the most egregious part of the bill is that it will force business owners to allow males who dress as women to use women's bathrooms.".
There's nothing egregious about that. No one is harmed by transwomen using the ladies room and transwomen most certainly would be harmed if they were forced to use the mens room and end up being assaulted or murdered. There's never been an incident of a transwomen harming anyone but there have been many many incidences of transwomen being assaulted or murdered by homophobes.
Anonymous said " What to stop guys from going the Klinger or John Ritter route pretending to feel like a women so they will get preference for a job or apartment.".
Ridiculous. The law doesn't give transwomen preference for jobs or apartments, it merely puts them on a level playing field with everyone else. Assuming the law works perfectly a transwoman is no more likely to get a job or apartment than a biological woman or man.
Anonymous said "These [perverted exhibitionists and voyueurs] are all possible consequences of not allowing business owners to set their own policies regarding their bathrooms.
Wrong. That will still be against the law just as it was before. There has been no such incidences in jurisdictions that have passed these laws, that is simply a lie.
Anonymous said " Business owners may have legitimate reasons to not want to hire guys who dress like women. There are positions where that wouldn't be appropriate. It should be left to their discretion.".
There is no legitimate reason to discriminate against transpeople. People should hire and fire only based upon job performance period. Transpeople can perform jobs just as well as people born with matching psychological and physical genders.
Jim said "This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms,"
Anonymous replied "How many times can the same lie be repeated in one post? Some men will be allowed in all women's rooms in the county under this bill.".
You're the one lying anoymous. The transwomen using ladies rooms are going there to pee, not to lurk and stare at women as you and yours keep suggesting. There's never been any complaints of transwomen learing at women in ladies rooms - it simply doesn't happen.
Anonymous said " Does anyone really believe that the current state of affairs is anything resembling a fascist dictatorship?".
It certainly is when you're a transwoman and bigots like you are trying to force us into the men's room where we risk being assaulted or murdered.
Anonymous said "Discrimination laws impose burdens on society and have unintended effects.".
Ridiculous. This law will burden no one save those who want to oppress transpeople without out of bigotry. Transpeople are rare, this law will have virtually no effect for anyone other than transpeople ourselves.
Anonymous said "There is no evidence of a widespread problem, however, with discrimination against those who want to change genders".
There most certainly is as Aunt Bea posted in this thread
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9797121&postID=3459799657563395544
at November 09, 2007 7:48 AM.
Anonymous said "Few people, for example, believe that a business owner should be compelled to allow biological males to use their women’s rooms or hire someone for a public relations position who dresses outlandishly. Better to leave this area to individual judgment.".
The law isn't about males in general using the ladies room, its about transwomen using the ladies room, a small harmless minority of people. The law won't force anyone to hire an outlandishly dressed transwoman, transwomen dress just as other women do and meet the same dress codes.
If we left all discrimination laws to individual judgment we'd still have segregated schools, water coolers, restaurants and places that don't serve jews, blacks, Christians, etc.
I think it's pretty clear to anyone who reads the above exchanges that TTF finds itself isolated and on the defensive with this gender identity bill. The public, in general, doesn't want to give up on the idea of gender. We reject an androgynous society as it is missing a crucial element.
A couple of misunderstandings that TTfers keep going back to and which need correcting:
1. No one said transgenders are more likely to attack or molest children. My guess is that guys who have convinced themselves that they are not guys are probably less aggressive than general and less likely to do something like that.
The point being made is that there will be no way to distinguish these guys from other guys who may have malicious plans. This bill is open to manipulation by these types.
2. No one said that discrimination against transgenders doesn't exist. The point instead is that it is as easily coped with as the discrimination that virtually all people suffer from based on their various idiosyncrasies and that it is in a category of characteristics of which it is acceptable to discriminate about if one so chooses. People should be free to choose what types of characters they wish to have dealings with.
Tom B.
Andrea-not anon
Tom B.- wow- you are certainly a CRC clone- it is okay to discriminate certain people?? I choose the CRC bigots like you- okay? Please move away so you don't taint our children with ignorance and hatred.
Andrea
Certainly you can't be ignorant enough not to know that everyone discriminates based on something. It's really impossible to live any other way. The question is: what is it legitimate to base one's discriminations on?
If an employer has two candidates applying for a job, there will always be some way used to discriminate between the two. What factors combine to make for a successful employee is a matter that people will disagree on. If some believe that a mental "condition", which is what the APA terms transgenderism, makes it unlikely that a job candidate will succeed in that job, that is a matter of individual judgment. It is the burden of the job candidate to convince an employer that they possess the qualities needed to succeed in the position.
Not saying I would use this factor to discriminate myself. Just saying that leaving it between individuals is the ideal legal situation.
Tom B.
Tom B. said " No one said transgenders are more likely to attack or molest children.".
Tom, you obviously didn't read all the comments. Theresa said exactly that. She said "the fact that whatever person with male parts who wants to can now parade in my female lockerroom and the owner of the establishment probably won't stop them because they are afraid of getting sued - which puts myself and my daughter in danger.".
Only transwomen are going to be in female washrooms etc. Theresa is saying we put her and her daughter in danger - that's a bigoted lie.
Tom said "The point being made is that there will be no way to distinguish these [pre-op transexuals] from other guys who may have malicious plans.
Of course there is. Pre-op transexuals have to be under the care of a psychiatrist to be eligible for sex reassignment surgery. That psychiatrist can vouch for the validity of a pre-op transexuals presence in a ladies room.
Tom said "No one said that discrimination against transgenders doesn't exist. The point instead is that it is as easily coped with as the discrimination that virtually all people suffer from based on their various idiosyncrasies and that it is in a category of characteristics of which it is acceptable to discriminate about if one so chooses. ".
It is not easy to cope with being denied a job or place to live. Most people don't have idiosyncrasies that result in such discrimination. It is never acceptable to discriminate on any other basis than one's ability to perform a job or be a responsible tenant. To suggest that virtually everyone has to put up with the same amount of discrimination as transpeople do is to be profoundly ignorant of reality.
Tom b. said "If some believe that a mental "condition", which is what the APA terms transgenderism, makes it unlikely that a job candidate will succeed in that job, that is a matter of individual judgment...leaving it between individuals is the ideal legal situation."
It is not a matter of individual judgment any more than its a matter of individual judgment to assume blacks are mentally inferior and incapable of doing a job requiring intelligence. The APA most certainly doesn't support the idea that being transgendered makes a person less able to do ANY job.
And Tom, gender identity disorder is not a "mental condition" - its a disorder of the body, the body does not match the gender of the mind. The problem is with the body, not the mind.
Dr. Beyer:
"As for the APA, they do not list GID as a mental disorder. It is a mental condition"
Un-Dr. Schimnosky:
"gender identity disorder is not a "mental condition""
Oh dear, how will we settle this one?
"It is not a matter of individual judgment any more than its a matter of individual judgment to assume blacks are mentally inferior and incapable of doing a job requiring intelligence."
One problem with your insult to African Americans: no medical associations say blacks are intellectually inferior but a medical association does say transgenderism is a mental condition. Blacks are not like transgenders.
Anon, are you making the point that it should be okay to discriminate against people with medical conditions?
Merle
"Pre-op transexuals have to be under the care of a psychiatrist to be eligible for sex reassignment surgery. That psychiatrist can vouch for the validity of a pre-op transexuals presence in a ladies room."
One can't stop and consult a psychiatrist everytime someone strange-looking person tries to go in a ladies' room. Of course, I guess they could carry a notorized document.
Did you ever see "The Great Pumpkin"? Just before Lucy pulls away the football, Charlie Brown says "I guess you can't go wrong with a signed document."
Enough with this foolishness. When these guys have their surgery, they can start using the ladies' room. Until then, wing it.
"Anon, are you making the point that it should be okay to discriminate against people with medical conditions?"
If it affects their ability to do their job. Mental conditions have broad-based effects. It should be left to the employer to deterine if an individual is suitable for a certain position.
"Only transwomen are going to be in female washrooms etc."
Or people pretending to be one. How can you tell?
Anonymous, I'm not insulting black people, its people like you that make that kind of assumption.
And no medical association says transpeople are in any way incapable of doing any job.
Anonymous said "When these guys have their surgery, they can start using the ladies' room. Until then, wing it.".
Now THAT'S foolish! A pre-op transexual has to undergo a one year real life test that requires her to live as a woman for a full year to qualify for the surgery. Anyone dressed as a woman going into the men's room is in danger of being assaulted or murdered. A pre-op transexual in the ladies room endangers no one. Pragmatism dictates that pre-op transexuals must use the ladies room. If you want to argue any differently I suggest you put on a dress and go use the men's room in your local red-neck bar and see how that works out for you.
Nice change of subject. I believe we are talking here about somebody who needs to pee.
Merle
Anonymous said "How can you tell?"
I already explained that to you. A psychiatrist can vouch for that person. Mine gives a letter explaining the condition to all pre-op transexuals for just such an instance where someone might question their right to be in the ladies room.
Oh, dear?
GID, or Gender Identity Disorder, is a condition made up by psychiatry in the late 80's when they chose to no longer use the category of "transsexualism." It is acknowledged today that there is no disorder of gender identity, just an intersex condition where the brain doesn't match the genitals. Anyone with any knowledge of sexual development would expect there to be transsexual men and women. It's inevitable.
Because of the history of the classification of sexual variations within psychiatry, we are still lumped within psychiatry. That is why this is listed as a condition in the DSM, but not an illness. Like other conditions listed within the DSM, the condition has to be causing intense and prolonged dysfunction to be classified as an illness. And the treatment for that condition is medical, surgical and social, making it as clear as anything can be that there is and never has been any mental illness involved.
So there is no conflict between what we've said. You just haven't been reading my blogging here for the past three years.
It's also pretty clear that there are many trans men and women who are far more mentally stable than many of the Anons who blog here regularly. There is nothing inherent in being transsexual that precludes one from doing any job as well as anyone else.
As for the fact that we all discriminate, that's just a red herring. Yes, we discriminate all the time, when we choose salami over bologna, but that's irrelevant.
Btw, I'd be happy to give up my trans protections if you give up your religious ones. Fair deal? Let's start discriminating against people on the basis of their religion; after all, it's the major classification of a protected class that is completely a choice.
As has been pointed out by others, most trans women carry documentation from their physician prior to legal ID change should they ever be challenged by any authority. It has worked for the past forty years, and it will work in the future. Claiming that all of a sudden it won't is just part and parcel of your fear-mongering. And of everything that has been said on this blog and to the Council, the most absurd is that men will suddenly dress like the Hogettes and invade womens' bathrooms to rape and murder girls. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Your insanity has not gone unnoticed at the Council and the Executive.
But I guess you just can't help yourselves.
Hate crimes up 8% last year... this is exactly why we need law protecting people: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/19/hate.crimes.ap/index.html
I lost someone who I loved (and still love) very much due to hateful people like anon...
What happened, youwish?
JimK
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke
::
Anonymous said...
“What Jim, Dr Beyer and their various irrational minions obscure, with their allusions to Nazis and KKK and bigotry and et al, is that all CRC suggests is to maintain the status quo and not enact the new discrimination laws proposed by Dr Beyer’s boss, Councilman Trachtenberg.”
Aw, you make the status quo sound so sweet and innocent. "Why oh my stars, I don't rightly see what all the fuss is about. All the CRC wants to do is maintain the current level of unfair discrimination and violence against people of transgender."
::
“Discrimination laws impose burdens on society and have unintended effects.”
Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)
Nary a reason, fact or example to be found, as usual. So “believe me” is your argument is it? In addition, you’re only talking about antidiscrimination laws that you don’t like -- lie of omission. And the overt lie of pretending you have a concern for society when you don’t even consider certain members of that society to be worthy of their own lives.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you have once stated that transgendered persons should NOT be beaten up or killed.
::
“The threshhold for resorting to these type of laws should be high.”
So you consider the current risk for transgendered persons of being homeless, jobless, and murdered to be too low of a threshold to warrant protections?
::
"Racial discrimination, for example, was once rampant in our society and caused real deprivation."
As opposed to the unreal deprivations transgendered persons face, not to mention that racial discrimination IS STILL RAMPANT. It's just not as rampant because of integration and anti-discrimination laws.
::
"There is no evidence of a widespread problem"
You mean there is no evidence of a widespread problem in your life. Did you type that with a straight face? Are you actually suggesting that laws protecting others should be based on your non-transgender life experience? And again, this is an admission that you consider the problems that already exist to be perfectly acceptable. You haven't said otherwise.
::
“Few people, for example, believe that a business owner should be compelled to allow biological males to use their women’s rooms”
Red Herring, and covered ad nauseam. And it is nauseating.
::
“or hire someone for a public relations position who dresses outlandishly.”
So now the measure compels business owners to hire absolutely anyone who dresses outlandishly, whether transgendered or not, no matter what the position? If you think people are stupid just because they are transgendered, SAY SO, don’t “obscure” by dancing around the subject. Especially not while you're accusing other people of "obscuring."
::
One thing I’ve noticed about the supremacist type is that in their attempt to refute the charges levied against them, they instead confirm it beyond any shadow of a doubt.
You say we are irrational and obscure, and then do nothing but obscure irrationally in your “defense.”
You didn’t refute anything that was said, you confirmed it, again.
"I lost someone who I loved (and still love) very much due to hateful people like anon..."
I don't know what happened, youwish, but the bill we been discussing has nothing to do with hate crimes. If it's an incidence of violence you're talking about, I hope the person has been caught and locked away.
Violence is reprehensible but it is and always has been against the law. Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.
Explain to me how I'm like whoever did whatever you're talking about.
The 2006 report on hate crimes is out. Just wanted to make this a link. I think it's relevant.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hate crime incidents in the United States rose last year by nearly 8 percent, the FBI reported Monday, as racial prejudice continued to account for more than half the reported instances.
::
youwish said...
Hate crimes up 8% last year... this is exactly why we need law protecting people: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/19/hate.crimes.ap/index.html
It's sad when people dilute terms. Not letting you use a bathroom is not a hate crime.
Of course, if you believe Jim Kennedy, it is a pogrom. ?!?!?
"I don't know what happened, youwish, but the bill we been discussing has nothing to do with hate crimes."
The extent to which that the “bill we been discussing” has to do with hate is the extent to which it has to do with hate crimes.
But you say that “Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”
::
"Hate crimes laws are a bad idea."
Given that the word “some” was not employed, the word “all” is implied by default.
Therefore:
You’re saying that you believe that ABSOLUTELY ALL hate crimes laws in the U.S. should be rescinded, including, obviously, protections for race and religion. Is this or is this not what you meant when you said: “Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”
I would very much like to hear the Yes or no answer to that question.
And there really is no inbetween, you have a choice between “some” and “all.” As in:
“all hate crimes laws are a bad idea”
and
“Some hate crimes laws are a bad idea”
Which statement do you feel most clarifies your position that “hate crimes laws are a bad idea?”
"Oh, dear?
So there is no conflict between what we've said."
Guess you Democrats must be playing with the definition of "is" again. You said earlier that transexualism is "mental condition." I repeated and your bizarro double said it is not a mental condition.
Uh, yeah, we get it. There's no conflict because....
"It's also pretty clear that there are many trans men and women who are far more mentally stable than many of the Anons who blog here regularly."
You mean like you, randi and improv. Oh yeah, I've noticed how stable you are.
"There is nothing inherent in being transsexual that precludes one from doing any job as well as anyone else."
Well, it may depend on the job and what you mean by doing a job "well." Employers should be free to assemble teams of people by mere instinct if they desire.
There is really no crisis here. Transgenders are finding jobs, shelter and plentiful bathrooms. No cause for irresponsible legislators and their lunatic assistants to try to interfere with the decision-making processes of small businessmen in the county.
"As for the fact that we all discriminate, that's just a red herring. Yes, we discriminate all the time, when we choose salami over bologna, but that's irrelevant."
We also choose between partners, employees, tenants, associates. We should be free to deal with and associate with those whose values we share, if we so desire.
That's freedom. It's not red- it's red, white and blue.
"Btw, I'd be happy to give up my trans protections if you give up your religious ones. Fair deal?"
Sign me up.
"Let's start discriminating against people on the basis of their religion; after all, it's the major classification of a protected class that is completely a choice."
That already goes on. It's no big deal. Few religious groups don't have an adequate internal support base.
"As has been pointed out by others, most trans women carry documentation from their physician prior to legal ID change should they ever be challenged by any authority."
No one is suggesting that the government enforce bathroom segregation. The only "authority" at a business is the owner. The government shouldn't be over-riding his rights.
"It has worked for the past forty years, and it will work in the future."
What has?
"Claiming that all of a sudden it won't is just part and parcel of your fear-mongering. And of everything that has been said on this blog and to the Council, the most absurd is that men will suddenly dress like the Hogettes and invade womens' bathrooms to rape and murder girls."
No one on this blog said that. Jim dug up somebody who said that so he could use them as a tackle dummy. The only thing opposition posters have said here is that it is possibility, and only after Jim raised the issue. Absurd as it may seem to you, most people don't want males dressed like girls in the county's restrooms.
"You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Your insanity has not gone unnoticed at the Council and the Executive."
They've noted the opposition alright. They're probably sitting around thinking: how did we let these lunatic fringe people talk us into this?
"But I guess you just can't help yourselves."
You lost perspective long ago, Dr.
"There is nothing inherent in being transsexual that precludes one from doing any job as well as anyone else."
Well, it may depend on the job and what you mean by doing a job "well."
“as well as anyone else,” was that not clear the first time it was typed out into words that could be read? Or do you not understand transgenderese, normally referred to as the English language?
::
"Btw, I'd be happy to give up my trans protections if you give up your religious ones. Fair deal?"
“Sign me up.”
The right to discriminate freely is your baby. The question is, where do we sign up? Besides, we wouldn’t want anyone to think that the evil “gay agenda” was part of such a noble cause now would we?
::
"It has worked for the past forty years, and it will work in the future."
“What has?”
Exactly.
::
“Claiming that all of a sudden it won't is just part and parcel of your fear-mongering. And of everything that has been said on this blog and to the Council, the most absurd is that men will suddenly dress like the Hogettes and invade womens' bathrooms to rape and murder girls."
"The only thing opposition posters have said here is that it is possibility”
Again, exactly. The ONLY “thing opposition posters have said here is that it is possibility”
To my knowledge, it hasn’t been condemned. Thus, to that extent, your silence speaks louder than your words.
From BoxTurtleBulletin.com:
National Transgender Day of Rememberance
With all this talk about hate crime statistics, now’s a good time to mention that tomorrow, November 20, is the annual Transgender Day Of Remembrance. This day is set aside to remember those who have been killed due to anti-transgender violence. Those deaths, by the way, don’t show up in the FBI’s hate crime statistics because the current federal Hate Crime Reporting Act doesn’t address gender, gender identity or expression. You can learn more about transgender hate crimes at the Remembering Our Dead web site.
Additional links included at the site.
Wow. Twist the truth don't you... here's the full story on hate crimes ... the religous ones are the most persecuted and sexual orientation (ZERO !!!!!) Hate Crimes Rose 8 Percent in 2006
> Since the FBI began collecting hate crime data in 1991, the most
> frequent motivation has been racial bias, accounting for 51.8 percent
> of incidents in 2006, down from the 54.7 in 2005.
> Also in 2006, religious bias was blamed for 18.9 percent of the
> incidents; sexual orientation bias for 15.5 percent, and ethnic or
> national origin - for
> 12.7 percent.
>
> NOW lets look at Montgomery County
> 2003 report
> Race Religion Sex. Orientation Ethnicity Disability
> 21 16 1 1 0
>
> 2006 Report
> Race 18
> Religion 20
> Sex. Orientation 0
> Ethnicity 3
> Disability 0
>
> Religion went up, Sex Orientation went to zero
>
>
Man, and you are bringing up the hate crimes report and not pointing this part of the report out ? LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.
Anonymous said...
”Wow. Twist the truth don't you... here's the full story on hate crimes ... the religous ones are the most persecuted and sexual orientation (ZERO !!!!!) Hate Crimes Rose 8 Percent in 2006"
"Also in 2006, religious bias was blamed for 18.9 percent of the incidents; sexual orientation bias for 15.5 percent”
Interesting that you consider 15.5% to be equal to zero. Did you figure that out on your own or did you use a calculator?
Anonymous said...
”Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”
National
Religion: 1,597
Anti-Jewish 1,027
Anti-Catholic 81
Anti-Protestant 62
Anti-Islamic 191
Anti-Other Religion 140
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group 88
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. 8
There are about 300 million people in the US, about 70% of which identify as Christian.
That’s 240 million Christians.
So as far as Christians go (and I’m not including any other religion because "Christian" supremacists believe that like homosexuals, anyone of any other religion is going to hell and therefore doesn’t count as anymore than human garbage in need of salvation), according to the chart above, we have Catholic and Protestant. That’s a total of 143 hate crimes against Christians out of 240 million.
Vs.
Sexual Orientation: 1,415
Anti-Male Homosexual 881
Anti-Female Homosexual 192
Anti-Homosexual 293
Anti-Heterosexual 28
Anti-Bisexual 21
According to anti-gay sources, about 3% (if not less) of the US population (300 mil) identifies as homosexual. That’s 9 million homosexuals.
So as far as homosexuals go, according to the chart above (and I didn’t even include bisexual), that’s 1366 hate crimes against homosexuals out of 9 million.
That’s about 1 out of every 7000 homosexuals who will be the victim of a hate crime.
vs.
about 1 out of every one and a half million Christians who will be the victim of a hate crime.
And you have the audacity to assert that “the religous ones are the most persecuted and sexual orientation (ZERO !!!!!)”
On top of your assertion that (whether or not you wrote this is irrelevant, you obviously agree with it):
Anonymous said...
”Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”
And then this:
“Man, and you are bringing up the hate crimes report and not pointing this part of the report out ? LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.”
“not pointing this part of the report out ?”
Exactly, nobody made a claim. You did, and then you knocked your own claim down, ergo, strawman.
You’re accusation of “liar” is a lie. Projection on your part, AGAIN.
Like I said:
"One thing I’ve noticed about the supremacist type is that in their attempt to refute the charges levied against them, they instead confirm it beyond any shadow of a doubt."
In addition, do you really think that Montgomery County Maryland is separate from the U.S.? Sounds rather treacherous to me.
:::
And on TOP of all that, we aren't even talking about hate crimes in regard to sexual orientation, we're talking about hate crimes committed against transgendered persons -- WHO AREN'T EVEN COUNTED!
So that's the REAL argument. No hate crime / non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT Americans = no record of hate crimes or discrimination against LGBT Americans = no need to protect LGBT americans from violence or discrimination. (in Jesus name of course)
But keep flinging those fish, people are bound to see the appeal of delusion sooner or later.
This is a Montgomery County law we are adding - AGAIN : lets look at Montgomery County
> 2003 report
> Race Religion Sex. Orientation Ethnicity Disability
> 21 16 1 1 0
>
> 2006 Report
> Race 18
> Religion 20
> Sex. Orientation 0
> Ethnicity 3
> Disability 0 It is relevant to look at what the statistics were locally when we are talking about a local bill.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi all - Here is an edited version of what i have already shared with the members of this forum. Some areas have been expanded, and some shortened. It is still quite long, and if you can get through it, maybe it will give someone out there a different view and allow for greater understanding and a better non-conflict based dialogue.
I understand from some of this dialogue that Dr. Beyer wishes to have an open and intelligent exchange of dialogue with Theresa and also useful to include Dr. Ruth Jacobs, vocally one of the primary opponents locally and lately. Dr. Beyer has been unable to get such a meeting with you, although she tells me that she has tried repeatedly for some time.
This constant bickering and rock throwing is continuing to degenerate into a real mess, when open discussion is needed in a very civilzed and highly intelligent manner.
I am going to openly ask this of you in front of th