Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Support Coming In For Transgender Rights in MoCo

The Montgomery County Council recently passed a bill prohibiting certain kinds of discrimination, essentially they added the words "gender identity" to the existing nondiscrimination law. The same handful of county extremists who opposed the schools' new sex education curriculum turned their attention against this new law, saying a lot of stuff about how it would allow perverted men to hang around in ladies rooms and other ridiculous things. They have failed to address the actual content of the bill, which is about discrimination, but the locker-room alarm was enough to get signatures.

Using that kind of argument, the shower-nuts were able to get enough petition signatures to allow a referendum on the bill in November. They needed 25,000 signatures and they got them. The Board of Elections looked them over and said they were okay, and so the county is moving forward with a referendum.

But not so fast. Equality Maryland and other groups got involved and started checking the signatures, and as a result some citizens filed a suit against the Board of Elections, saying they hadn't properly looked at those petitions before they certified them. They listed off at least twenty things wrong with signatures that had been approved by the county, and pretty soon it's going to go to court.

A group called Basic Rights Montgomery was organized specifically to support the new bill. In the meantime, lawyers are expensive, never mind office space and supplies and pizza and coffee for volunteers. So this is some welcome news -- from a Human Rights Campaign press release:
WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, announced it will contribute $20,000 to support Basic Rights Montgomery’s fight to preserve a recently passed law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in the face of a possible ballot measure seeking to repeal the law. The announcement was made June 1 by HRC Board of Governors member Dr. Dana Beyer at Equality Maryland’s annual gala event.

"We are pleased and proud to support Basic Rights Montgomery’s important work in fighting an effort by the far right to repeal a law that protects residents of Montgomery County from discrimination," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This law is about basic fairness and equality—it makes clear that no one should be denied the right to work, access to housing, access to public accommodations, or other rights simply because of who they are. The repeal effort is a misguided attempt to scare voters into turning back the clock on equality."

In November 2007, the Montgomery County (Maryland) Council voted unanimously to pass a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, and taxi and cable service. The measure was signed into law by County Executive Isaiah Leggett and was set to take effect February 21, 2008, but was put on hold when signatures were submitted in support of a petition to place a repeal measure before voters on this November’s ballot. Twelve Montgomery County residents filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of signatures that were submitted, as well as the process used to certify them.

Montgomery County was set to join 13 other states, the District of Columbia, and over 100 localities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In April 2008, a group of Montgomery County residents, joined by Equality Maryland, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, as well as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, formed Basic Rights Montgomery to preserve the new anti-discrimination law and educate the public about the protections the law would provide. The campaign to repeal the law is led by Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, a group whose efforts have been endorsed by the Family Research Council, a national far right group. Human Rights Campaign Announces $20,000 Contribution to Basic Rights Montgomery

Money in bundles this size will help if the battle stays in the courts, that is, it will pay for lawyers and costs associated with preparing a court case. But if the issue goes to a public vote, five-digit donations won't be enough. In that case, you have to educate the public, you have to reach the voters, and besides that you'll have all the big-bucks Family Blah Blah groups buying TV ads and billboard space to tell people that perverts, pedophiles, and predators will be threatening our children and frightening our womenfolk. The cost of creating and distributing educational materials to counter these kinds of lies will be phenomenal, but it needs to be done in order to inform the public about the issues so they can vote intelligently. Transgender people make up such a small minority that most people don't understand what the deal is. It's easy to marginalize and stereotype them without giving it any thought, but with a little information and a little effort it's not hard to learn to respect people who are different from you.

It takes money to get people to stop and think about it.
HRC members were among volunteers from Equality Maryland, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, TeachTheFacts, the National Center for Transgender Equality, NOW and other organizations, as well as law students, who have helped review signatures submitted in support of the proposed ballot measure. HRC’s contribution will support Basic Rights Montgomery’s general work. For more information on Basic Rights Montgomery please visit:

Wow, when I copied-and-pasted that I didn't realize we were mentioned in this press release. Yes, TTF is fully in accord with the goals of Basic Rights Montgomery. We think people can treat one another with respect and fairness. We fought for it in the schools and now we'll stand with Basic Rights Montgomery, fighting for equality in our county's laws.


Anonymous Robert said...

I listened to Concerned Women of America's and Family whatever of Colorado's download of their radio broadcast about the new transinclusive nondiscrimination law in Colorado (Orin, you probably could give us more info about this). They mentioned MoCo, brought up the same basic line about predators going into women's locker rooms and claiming to be trans at their trials, said something about child molesters at gym daycares, put in some stuff about how people traveling through Colorado this summer would have to be extra cautious, and then went on about how this law interferes with a Constitutionally guaranteed right to discriminate in public accomodations (Colorado put in a religious-exception amendment on their law, so even CWA and Colorado Family Whatever had to admit that religious institutions wouldn't be affected; they had to bring in something from New Mexico to run scare tactics about that).

It does seem like a genuine conflict to me, though. Many religious insist upon discrimination of different sorts (remember, I grew up in the deep south, and remember when my church opposed school integration and theater and housing integration on religious grounds). At the heart of many religious is the concept that my group is right and yours is not. Because our constitution guarantees both religious freedom and equal protection, there are bound to be conflicts.

My personal feeling is that free speech trumps everything, equal protection and due process come next, and religious freedom comes next. I would argue that the religious right is a private right, whereas the others occur in the public realm.


June 05, 2008 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so it is a basic right of a transgender "female" who still retains a penis to use the women's room ? and the ladies showers ?
really ?
that's a basic right ?

What happened to my basic right to privacy and my right to expect only biological females in the locker room... oh that's right, that's not a basic right. Wanting to ensure that ladies locker rooms have only people without penises makes me a bigot.

Thanks for clarifying Jim !

June 05, 2008 6:41 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, how many "transgender 'females' who still retain a penis" do you encounter in a typical day at the gym? I am guessing that that circumstance will not presence a terrible inconvenience for you.

In your second paragraph, you are correct: there is no "my basic right to privacy and my right to expect only biological females in the locker room."

"Wanting to ensure that ladies locker rooms have only people without penises" does not make you a bigot, you could easily propose a bathroom ordinance without being a bigot. It's your obsession with limiting the rights of people who are different from you that makes you a bigot.


June 05, 2008 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the county council had ample opportunity to amend the bill after the public outcry.
they did not.

so now the whole bill goes up for a vote and we shall see what the public thinks, won't we ?

June 05, 2008 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Wow, Theresa.

Why are you so against people being treated equally under the law?

What Would Jesus Do? Most certainly NOT discriminate against ANYONE for ANY reason.

What an unchristian agenda you have.

I keep praying for you, "Forgive her, Jesus, for she knows not what she does"-- and you keep on hating. Wake up out of your sad little nightmare you have created for not only yourself but millions of innocent American around the United States (GLBT individuals). You're an absolute disgrace to the Christian community.

On that note, I am going to go help my neighbor remove the huge tree that fell down during yesterday's storm. See, I am a believer in, "Love Thy Neighbor". Try it sometime, Theresa.

By The Way- As a teacher, I would recommend taking an English grammar course at some point, especially if you are homeschooling your children.

June 05, 2008 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why is seperating bathrooms by biological sex treating people "unequally under the law".
It is very equal.
If you have a penis, you belong in the mens room.
if you don't have a penis you can go in the ladies room.

It is the definition of fairness. Please explain how you believe this is "not fair ?"

June 05, 2008 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Anon, have you ever seen a lady with a penis in a ladies room? Aint gonna happen.

June 05, 2008 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if it is NOT going to happen, than I am sure that the county council will have no problem making it illegal.

June 05, 2008 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

These are news stories about some transgender people. Yes, that happens, that's why we need this law.

June 05, 2008 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forgive me for quoting from Box Turtle Bulletin (May 9, 2008) but, as "David" said there: "no one who is psychosexually healthy spends that much energy focused on other people's sex lives." Of course, what we are dealing with here in Montgomery County is "equal protection of the law" guaranteed to transgender people. Theresa, and her cronies, cannot stay away from injecting sexual references, innuendos, and blatant lies in her sad and pathetic efforts to prevent transgender people from enjoying the same rights she has and takes for granted. Her constant focus on sexual references in a perverted attempt to rile up peoples' deepest ignorance and fears indicates a deep and severe mental problem which could best be solved, according to her religious beliefs, by praying for healing. Too bad she has to play out her own unhappiness at the expense of other people.

June 05, 2008 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" (Theresa?): You said: "the county council had ample opportunity to amend the bill after the public outcry." What "public outcry" would that have been? Shouting offensive and threatening comments at members of the County Council? Standing up and yelling "Heil Hitler" and showing a Nazi salute? Public outcry has to be more than 6 or 7 (and I am being generous here) disgruntled, hateful people attempting to bully public officials. Or those same people blatantly lying to citizens in pressuring them to sign a petition in order to "accomplish" what they didn't and couldn't get through established procedures for enacting legislation.
Yes indeed, we shall see what the majority of outraged citizens thinks when "the bill goes up for a vote"...especially when they learn of the deceit, lies, bigotry, and trashing of rights that you and your bogus CRG advocate.

June 05, 2008 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

still no one has answered the question why it is unfair to seperate bathrooms by biological sex ?

It is one standard applied to all, equally.

Instead of debating, you throw insults (which become progressively worse if you really don't want to answer the question) witness the Merle exchange... Typical liberal smear tactics are on display at TTF. Par for the course.

I found the exchange with Merle quite amusing.... thanks for the laugh.

June 05, 2008 9:51 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


I will repeat, and Cynthia has already quoted you chapter and verse from the County Code. There are no laws anywhere today which segregate bathrooms. In MoCo businesses have the right to do as they please, but there is no public law. Women currently frequently use men's rooms, though men rarely use the women's rooms. If you had your way, and you won't, I expect, you would have trans men in the women's room, and then you'd be shouting bloody murder.

You know, you never bothered to respond to my query of you about trans men. Who would you rather use the women's room -- pre-op trans women living as women, or trans men, pre or post-op, living as men?
Simple question.


Would you mind posting a photo of a trans man, say, Jamison Green, to help Theresa out with this? I can't cut and paste such a photo into the comments.


June 05, 2008 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this public outcry.

June 05, 2008 9:52 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


I missed your last comment before I posted. We have argued this before. You keep throwing around "biological = penis," and you're simply wrong. You know nothing about biology, and you care even less.

Be honest and just say, "Why not segregate bathrooms by genitalia?"

Of course, then you'd have to deal with the genitally ambiguous intersexed individuals, but you've got a well of compassion left over so I'm sure you'd find a way to accommodate them, as well as those people who don't have any genitals at all.

June 05, 2008 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please point to where in the law it says that operators can choose to segregate their facilties...

other the county attorneys opinion, which was never backed up by a citation. Essentially what you are stating is that the county council's attorney's opinion, was just that, an opinion, not backed up anywhere by the law. and now, you are taking the opposite stance... well the law never said that MC was allowed to segregate the restrooms anyway... so the county attorney's opinion was that operators could continue segrating even though that isn't backed up by the code anywhere. interesting.

the difference is prior to this law, the operator was not in danger of being sued for a fine up to 500,000 for a gender identity HRC violation if the operator kicked a man out of the all female ladies room. Now they can get sued for a public accomodations gender identity discrimination violation, so clearly they won't try to remove a male from the ladies room.

June 05, 2008 10:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I can't embed a photo in the comments but can link to a picture. Here is a picture of Jamison Greene, a transgender man: HERE

The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever would like to force this person to use the ladies room ...


June 05, 2008 10:19 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You know, Theresa, you and your folks have been screaming "lawsuit" all the way back to the civil rights days in the 60's. How many lawsuits have there been on civil rights issues over the years? What are you really worried about? That most business owners don't care and are decent people?

The most recent lawsuit over bathroom access was in New York, where a club owner threw out a butch woman from the women's bathroom. The bouncer refused to check for ID.

Ever been in a bathroom with a butch woman, gay or straight? What, pray tell, will you tell the kids?

And you still haven't answered my question about trans men, now that Jim has linked to Jamison's photo. Do you, or do you not, want him in your bathroom, and the Bethesda Sport and Health Club's women's locker room?

June 05, 2008 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anyone who is biologically still male does not belong in the ladies room.
anyone who is biologically female does not belong in the mens room.

they should go in unisex bathrooms while their equipment does not match the designation of the bathroom. Esp where gyms and locker-rooms are concerned.

why are firms up in baltimore advertising the new law on their website trolling for clients ? this law is a dream for the attorneys...

June 05, 2008 11:08 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You still haven't answered my question, unless you are trying to say that trans men with vaginas should only use unisex bathrooms. Good luck with that.

As for showers and lockerrooms, I have told you repeatedly that accommodations are made so you people like you are not offended. You haven't presented a single instance in this country where this has been a problem, so it's about time you dropped it.

And you keep using "biologically" inappropriately. C'mon, Theresa, you're an engineer.

Baltimore has has its law for six years -- how many lawsuits have been filed there?

June 05, 2008 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa use of biological is fine. It's verifiable. Yours is materialist- and imaginary.

June 06, 2008 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

If you have a penis, you belong in the mens room.
if you don't have a penis you can go in the ladies room.

And just how do you propose the genitalia of people using the rest room be determined? Do you expect businesses with bathrooms for public use to hire genitalia checkers and post them at the bathroom doors?

June 06, 2008 8:01 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Ah, Wyatt, the man with the imaginary brain. How on point!

June 06, 2008 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
I have been using women's bathrooms for many, many years. I have never seen any "private parts"- that is why there are stalls. I would avoid the less traveled paths of the Tuileries in Paris- I'm not sure if it was public urination or flashing but the man wasn't wearing a skirt so I guess theresa and wyatt are okay with that.

June 06, 2008 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

In schools (especially middle schools, often in private schools also) students who do not present as stereotypical to their gender are terribly abused. Clearly many people teach their children that boys must be 'butch' and girls must be feminine.

I would argue that most of the more rabid harassment of gays and lesbians stems from a perception of their transgressing gender stereotypes.

CRG/W and CWfA teach and reinforce this genuine hatred for people who do not meet their gender stereotypes. The bit about genitalia and locker rooms is a red herring.

Children whose gender expression does not meet stereotypical expectations are among the most oft abused and most vulnerable of our school children. We certainly don't need to make them more vulnerable.


June 06, 2008 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an issue that really sets off the looniest here- Beatrice (gee, wonder who that is), "Dana" and drizzly Andrea.

The topic:

Was Theresa correct in using the term, "biological male", to refer to those with male genitalia?

Despite another grab at changing English to advance an imaginary worldview, Theresa's usage is common among adherents on both sides of the issue. A quick search of the internet will reveal many on the TTF side of the court who use "biological male" in exactly the same manner Theresa does. Examples:

Michael Dorf, a professor of law at Columbia (I know...not all their graduates are completely sane) uses the term in the same way Theresa does while arguing in favor of New York's transgender law.

Patrick Chapman, a noisy gay advocate, who calls himself a "biological anthropologist" and teaches at the august and renowned institution of South Puget Sound Community College, uses the term in the same way Theresa does while criticizing a Focus on the Family study opposing same sex marriage.

The assault on English to try to change the world to their liking is a common tactic by the lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement.

It's part of the gay agenda.

June 06, 2008 9:56 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

What seems to be overlooked in the shower debate, and the ruckus being raised about is the behavior of a typical transwoman. The same discomfort / hatred / disgust / anxiety / loathing of certain body parts that causes her to eventually seek vaginoplasty frequently manifests itself in shower-phobic ways long before transition occurs.

I realize it’s not a scientific survey, but in one of my group meetings of about 10 transwomen, we compared notes about gym class. The group ranged in age from the 30’s to the 70’s. All but one of us (the 70 year-old) managed to avoid high school and / or college gym class entirely. In my case, I had a doctor’s excuse. In another case, my friend failed to earn her degree even though she had earned all the necessary credits – except for the required gym class. It was amazing how many excuses these gals had for getting out of gym class.

The college I went to was “men only” when I attended, and residence in the on-campus dorms was mandatory unless you were already a resident of the local town. Most guys showered first thing in the morning. A large number of other guys showered before going to bed to avoid the morning rush. I typically showered during the dinner hour – if the guys weren’t eating supper they were likely doing homework or watching TV. I was nearly always mercifully alone.

In some transwomen the shower-phobia extends even further. One friend of mine used to only shower in the dark – in her own home.

I went “full time” as a woman in July of 2003. By that time I had tens of thousands of dollars in electrolysis performed on my face, and in November of 2003 I had $35,000 of facial surgery performed to help me live my life better as a passable woman and avoid the inevitable harassment and potential for violent abuse that comes with being a transwoman. In all, I have spent about $95,000 on my face and skull to avoid being perceived and treated as a “man in a dress.” I did not have my vaginoplasty until March of 2005. The thought that I would spend $95,000 just on my face to pass as a woman and live my life unnoticed, and then go into a ladies’ locker room to reveal my secret little surprise is just plain asinine.

I personally did not have the nerve to go anywhere near a locker room until after my final surgery, and so far that has only been once – and my mother was with me. I do have reason to believe that some pre-op transwomen are braver than I was and have gone into ladies locker rooms. It has not been a problem (whether or not a law was in place) because even if the changing area was open, they changed inside toilet stalls, and no one suspected anything. Obviously, they did not shower in these places. Nor do I suspect any of them ever would, even if some law allowed them to. The same discomfort / hatred / disgust / anxiety / loathing that compels us to have surgery does a pretty good job of making sure other people aren’t exposed to it as well.

As for the argument / scare-tactic that pedophiles could use the law to prey on girls in the restrooms, it might have carried more weight in the County Council meetings if someone could have provided evidence that this had happened even just ONCE before. Keep in mind that pedophiles have their own reasons to pass as normal, unnoticeable people in our society, and a male pedophile putting on a dress to stalk restrooms isn’t exactly “blending in.”



June 06, 2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"...where did you get your college degree after obtaining your G.E.D.? Intellectual snobbery doesn't become you, but I haven't been able to figure out yet what good features you have that can override that. Oh, and btw, I assume you segregate bathrooms in your home by biological sex?

June 06, 2008 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

good subject change

I'll take it as a concession that Theresa's right and Dana's wrong about the term, "biological male"

moving on, no one on either side has suggested a law segregating restrooms by gender; the only question is whether the owners of facilities should be free to segregate restrooms by gender, as commonly defined, under the law

CRG favors freedom, TTF favors regulation

TTF's real goal is for the government to endorse their redefinition of gender

June 06, 2008 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Gold's gym used to have open shower areas in the men's locker room, but they've converted (at least at all the ones I've to) to stalls that are well concealed. Are not women's locker rooms like this?


June 06, 2008 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said

"lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement"

The queer people, you don't them so much, no?


June 06, 2008 12:30 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


My comments were directed at Theresa, not anyone else. The fact that there are other prudes out there who can't or won't use "genitals" rather than "biological" is just plain sad. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and ignorant of biology. You've clearly never paid attention to any of my comments on biology, and I'm sure you're very proud of that.

June 06, 2008 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth is, "Dana", your zany proposed law, which will not ever be enacted, doesn't say anything about "biology" but about "expression".

Your error is that you assume every expression is nothing more than a manifestation of biology. You think that because you're a materialist. That's a religious viewpoint without any empirical evidence.

Theresa was right, you wrong. When every uses a term in a certain way, that is, by definition, it's definition.

June 06, 2008 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth is, "Dana", your zany proposed law, which will not ever be enacted, doesn't say anything about "biology" but about "expression".

Your error is that you assume every expression is nothing more than a manifestation of biology. You think that because you're a materialist. That's a religious viewpoint without any empirical evidence.

Theresa was right, you wrong. When every uses a term in a certain way, that is, by definition, it's definition.

June 06, 2008 2:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, Dana's name is Dana. I won't tolerate ugly personal insults here. If you put her name in quotes again or make any other kind of "joke" about it I'm going to delete your comment.


June 06, 2008 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 06, 2008 4:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "The truth is, "Dana", your zany proposed law, which will not ever be enacted, doesn't say anything about "biology" but about "expression".".

Yeah, right, never will be enacted just like in 2009 president Huckabee's going to do this and president Huckabee's going to do that. You have a rather pitiful record on predicting the future Red Baron.

June 06, 2008 4:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jim anonymous/bug eyed/red baron/maggie here said he was going to stick to the pseudonym rolling thunder as you asked him to do, how about it?

June 06, 2008 4:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia is right, no pre-op transwoman is going to let anyone see her body in the ladies' room and Theresa and the anonybigot know it. Never happened and never will This is just a cheap excuse for them to promote discrimination against transexuals.

Despite their rhetoric if they could restrict restrooms and gym changerooms to peoples genetic sex they'd screem bloody murder if someone like Jamison Greene tried to follow their suggestions and use the ladies bathroom or changeroom.

June 06, 2008 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that is amazing Jim.

"you don't tolerate any personal insults here "...

Really ? I would say your policy is no personal insults directed toward TTF proponents but for the rest of us anything goes...

June 06, 2008 6:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, let me explain how the rules work here. There is no Constitution for this blog, no legislative body passing laws, TTF doesn't vote on how the blog will be run. I make the rules and enforce them.

Think of it like this: you are in our living room. If we want to joke about the idiots out there, we do it freely, because we are at home. If you want to make insulting comments about us, we'll throw you out.

You see how that works? We are being very tolerant, you have essentially come into our house and pooped on our living-room rug, and we have been tolerant. But we don't have to be.


June 06, 2008 7:17 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Living room poop said…
"CRG favors freedom, TTF favors regulation"

Correct, but you people never finish your sentences.

The CRG favors the freedom to imprison and execute LGBT Americans. As per Lawrence v Texas, and Leviticus 20:13.

TTF indeed favors the regulation of that kind of imprisonment and mass murder.

June 06, 2008 8:46 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


Calling me a materialist is not being taken as an insult.

Your disrespect is insulting.

And your repeatedly saying that since Theresa chooses to define "genitals" as "biological" makes it so is patently ludicrous. You should be ashamed.

Once again, I just love how the only sex organ you care about is your penis. You ignore your brain completely. How appropriate.

June 06, 2008 9:04 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

It seems to me that this ordinance was created to generate fairness for those with the lgbt orientation. A group of individuals who oppose the ordinance sat down and looked for a loophole that would generate a lot of controversy.

They seemed to have found it with the "bathroom issue." The people who oppose this ordinance really are not concerned about bathrooms or showers.

This is about people who are so coldblooded that they would try to keep lgbts from getting cheese on a ham sandwich.

Of course I don't think that I am saying anything that anyone concerned with this issue is not aware of. But these things still need to be said.

June 06, 2008 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no Constitution for this blog, no legislative body passing laws,"

Well, of course not. But you also have no integrity.

Biological male is the term commonly used among English speakers for any one who has male anatomical features. Your gender-surfing friend is wrong.

June 06, 2008 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You ignore your brain completely."

The brain hasn't been ignored. The question is whether the mind is the chemical and electrical activity of the brain or is the brain simply the organ through which the mind speaks to the body.

There is no more empirical validity for your view than any other.

You didn't get disrespect, you got a removal of indulgence when you refused to indulge another.

If your friend Jim has a problem with that, tell him to block me.

June 06, 2008 10:08 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I have a problem with you coming into our house and being rude to my friends. You can express any opinion you believe, if you do it in a civil manner.


June 06, 2008 10:41 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...


You say you’re concerned about the potential for a $500,000 lawsuit in regard to this bill.

How many private “unisex” bathrooms could $500,000 buy?
Humor me.

If Montgomery County had the finances to equip every “accommodation” in town to your personal satisfaction, would you then support this bill?

June 07, 2008 12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Black Tsunami, You are correct. In my encounter with a petitioner at a local grocery store, the petitioner made it clear that her true objection is to the existence of "those people." Letting them into the bathroom is just the last straw as far as she is concerned, and the real problem is that anyone lets them walk the streets in the first place.

She told me over and over again that, "you can never tell what anyone is thinking." By that logic, should we let anyone use public restrooms?

At choir last week a good friend began talking about how many times her daughter had been yelled at or sent out of public women's rooms. The daughter is a high school senior and I have known her since she was in grade school. She's a classic tomboy who loves all kinds of out-door life and sports. What I didn't know, and just learned, is that since she reached puberty and got tall, she frequently is harassed by other women in restrooms, and my friend has to go in and tell them to leave her daughter alone, or has to tell management that her daughter has been yelled at, threatened with police, or refused admittance by other customers.

Why is it not illegal to decide for yourself that you are authorized to kick someone out of a public restroom? Wouldn't that be harassment or assault?

June 07, 2008 8:14 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

It would be harrassment or assault, and it's irrelevant where it occurs, bathroom or not.


There are many terms "common among English speakers" that are either offensive or just plain wrong. What's your point? My point is that you and Theresa are prudes.

As for the mind being more than the brain, well, of course. Otherwise we would use the terms interchangeably, or, at least, that would be "common among English speakers." I dare say I know more about the biology of emergence and complexity than you do. Your point, which you fear to make, is that somehow your God resides in your mind. Sorry.

June 07, 2008 8:39 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 07, 2008 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I first met Candace through Rugby, and did a workshop at a conference with her. She's awesome.


June 07, 2008 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

So, AnonFreak, this is the mentality you have shown with your hateful comments on this blog

"Us" (straight, religious people) versus "them" (gay, lesibian, bisexual, transgender people).

Isn't that what the Nazis did with the Jews? Dehumanize them so that they would not feel bad about the concentration camps they were put into or putting them to death?

Isn't that what slave owners also did with slaves?

Interesting, AnonFreak.

June 07, 2008 8:43 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I re-read my last post and realized that I made a comment about forcing women to wear burkhas that may have offend Muslims. This was not my intent. I was merely trying to point out the absurdity of the restroom argument. I would like to formally request that Jim remove my last post, and apologize for any offence that may have occurred. I have a number of Muslim friends and they have always treated me with dignity, respect, kindness, and friendship. I am very, very sorry. I will make sure it doesn’t happen again.



June 08, 2008 10:28 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Cynthia, I can do that, but we'll lose all the rest of what you said -- your call.


June 08, 2008 10:36 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...


Please delete it -- I can always repost the rest of it. Thank you.



June 08, 2008 2:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home