Friday, August 08, 2008

Fantasy and Reality

The people who are trying to re-legalize gender-identity discrimination are relying on a fundamental psychological principle: imagining something vividly makes it seem more probable.

This is sometimes called the "salience effect." Say an airplane crashes, and the news is filled with pictures of burning debris and injured people. You will find that people are especially afraid to fly right after that. The actual probability of a crash hasn't increased measurably, just the vividness of the idea. A kid gets abducted and all of a sudden playgrounds are empty as parents fear it will happen to their child. There's a nasty car-crash and drivers white-knuckle the wheel and keep a foot hovering over the brake pedal. Thinking about something makes it seem more likely to happen.

Now the shower-nuts want you to imagine something terrible happening if transgender people get the same rights as the rest of us. They can't point to a time that anything terrible has happened in any of the very many places that already have equal rights, so they have to make up something for you to focus on.

Their argument is very simple. It goes like this: imagine a creepy male sexual predator lurking in a ladies locker-room.

That's the whole thing. There is no rational link between that image and the nondiscrimination law, there is nothing in the law that will make that sort of event more probable. There is no law at the present time that says a man can't go into a ladies room, and it's not a problem. As it is, you don't even have to claim to "feel like a woman inside," a guy can walk in there any time he wants, as far as the law is concerned, as long as he behaves himself. He should put the seat down afterwards, but I don't think there's a law about that, at least in our county.

You can use your mind for dreaming, or you can use your mind for thinking, it's your call. In the dream world, things that happen at the same time cause each other; good people are beautiful and bad people are ugly; big things and things that are nearby are more important than small and distant things; famous people are more truthful and knowledgeable than ordinary people; strange things are dangerous; brightly-colored things are more significant than dull things; good and evil are real qualities that characterize individuals and even entire countries.

These are natural psychological responses, based on the fact that we evolved as social mammals with inborn talents that helped us survive in a dangerous world. Advertisers know how to capitalize on this kind of thinking, politicians know how to manipulate it. Some people never realize that there is another way to use your mind, where you confirm facts and sources of information and use valid reasoning to come to conclusions.

Here: Imagine what it would be like if we passed a law that said you couldn't discriminate against transgender people, and then a perverted ugly guy in a dress lurked in a ladies room, waving his festering penis at the women and children, drooling lewdly through the stubble of his untrimmed beard, staring at the smooth skin of their fertile, virginal bodies. Just imagine! Close your eyes and think about it, picture it, dwell on it. It could happen!

That's what we're up against. We all use this kind of thinking sometimes, when we make snap decisions, say, about who to be nice to and who to avoid, it is human nature. But civilized human nature is capable of knowing that the world can be seen from multiple perspectives. This is the beauty of being social mammals, we have a gift for taking someone else's point of view. Once you've made that leap, once you have realized that your own perspective is but one of many, egocentric dream-thinking seems insufficient and primitive. I want our political decisions, policy decisions, decisions about the direction of our society, to be made by a reasonable process, not by people imagining hypothetical possibilities, as if they were dreaming.

39 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...a fundamental psychological principle: imagining something vividly makes it seem more probable."

That's amusing, Jim. I like that. Okay, let's try this: A man imagines vividly that he's a woman. This vividness makes it seem more probable. Then, he gets an operation that removes visible, physical evidence, and it seems even more probable to him. Then, he starts demanding that everyone imagine as vividly as he does. And voila! The fundamental psychological principle works beautifully!

The problem is, those pesky people who refuse to imagine as vividly as he does.

August 08, 2008 3:01 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you've already used that one. Can you think of some reason that a man would imagine vividly that he's a woman?

There is an argument to be made that the self is a social fiction. There is no argument to be made, though, that self creates itself arbitrarily from its own imagination. Every self is embodied and every self exists in a social milieu. Information from the body and social information are interpreted and interwoven, and these provide the basic materials for the construction of a self.

There is very little social feedback telling a "boy" that he is really a girl, in fact there is usually none. Yet some boys do feel and believe that they are girls, really. This information comes from the body somehow, the source will differ with individuals.

It is naive to assume that anyone simply imagines themselves to be an arbitrary sex, and then does the things you said. It doesn't make any sense -- why would someone make their own life so difficult?

JimK

August 08, 2008 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- There are all types of vivid, imaginary things that people think. Some people imagine that they're dogs. In fact, many children go through a phase where they believe they're dogs. Parents don't encourage it -- they see it as a phase, just as they should do when children say they want to be of the opposite sex. If they grow up and still feel that way, then the person deals with it.

I don't know -- why would people vividly imagine that they want larger breasts? Doctors oblige them by performing the breast enlargement operation. If they didn't think they could have the operation, the thought would probably fade away. The fact that doctors perform sex change operations make people feel that their want is all the more valid and within their reach. I'm sure that this would intensify the imagination.

One big difference is...the County Council didn't pass legislation which tries to make us give special rights to "those who have large breasts or those who perceive that they have large breasts, or who have ever thought that they might like to have large breasts."

August 08, 2008 4:15 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you could not have supported the point of this post any better. Thank you.

JimK

August 08, 2008 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- You write down your fantasy theories in a manner like your most recent post, and I'll be right there with you to do the same. Nothing either of us said makes much sense, but I'll match your nonsensical with another nonsensical any day. You spout half truths and confusion, and I'll do the same. Whenever you'd like to get back to reality, let me know.

August 08, 2008 11:31 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"(Besides, the kicker to the way Bill 23-07 is written -- they don't even have to put on dresses.)

Also, why do you think that giving men access to ladies' rooms is so far fetched as an avenue of crime?"


Because in their minds, they are ENIRELY FEMALE. Whether you believe this or not, this is a point that you have yet to acknowledge.

“men” who consider themselves to be “women,” are (usually) not attracted to women. Yet this is what you continue to imply.

What you’re suggesting is that if you called the cops on a lecherous guy, who totally looks like a guy, that they would side on the sake of the non-discrimination law.

Is this what you really fear?

In addition, you (assuming you're Theresa or one of her protoges) have already made it clear that the bathroom issue is JUST THE BEGINNING. And that you would also be against transportation services, public services, and most importantly - protections against unfair job loss.

This is where the dishonesty part comes into play for me, you say one thing is your concern, when really, there are a whole host of other things you are against as well -- BUT YOU DON’T SAY SO!

Or am I truly to understand that if Bill 23:07 law passes, that the heterosexual men of Montgomery County will be suddenly struck with the compulsion to get a sex change operations, so they can legally letch after women in female bathrooms, and/or "expose themselves" in vagina-ridden locker rooms - without notice?

Again,

ZERO imagination?

August 09, 2008 5:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emproph,

There are a number of things wrong with Bill 23-07, and every person who is against it has a different reason for being against it.

If you stand back and take an objective look at this bill, it is the biggest piece of legislative mess that has possibly ever been written. It relies on vague definitions and even Mike Knapp has stated that it would have been up to the courts to interpret various parts. What legislator writes a piece of legislation with the full knowledge that the courts will one day have to interpet it? The courts are supposed to be a last resorts. Most legislators consider that to be a HUGE failure. But not our County Council. Most legislators would be embarrassed that their legislation is so flawed that it caused a referendum. But not our County Council.

The County Council needs to decide who it wants to protect -- and then do so. If they want to protect people who truly feel that they're members of the opposite sex, then they should write the Bill to do so. There are a thousand ways that I, as a non-lawyer could sit down and craft this bill to accomplish that goal. It's not that difficult.

The problem is, the County Council seems to be greedy. They want to include every possible fringe group so that not one of them is left out -- from the person who just thinks about women's clothes, to the transsexual who takes a step to have the operation. Lumping them all into one, broad definition is the downfall of this Bill. It's called "pork barreling" when you get right down to it. Adding pork to a bill is one of the fastest ways to kill it, though no County Council member tried to kill it so now the citizens of Montgomery County are forced to do so.

That being said...the citizens tried, before the Bill was passed, to have various parts fixed. The only thing the County Council did was remove the obvious bathroom language. And the only reason they did this is because they KNEW that the bathrooms were covered even without the language.

The CRG had no recourse but to try to repeal the entire bill. Once a bill is passed, that's the only recourse. The citizens, at that point, can't ask for revisions or for certain parts of the bill to be killed. At that point, it's the whole enchilada or nothin'.

You bring up other issues, such as housing. The only issue that CRG has with housing is that renters looking for roommmates could be fined if they do not wish to share their home with someone who retains male genitals. Instead of ignoring this real concern, the County Council should have fixed that part of the bill. And guess what? Voila! The CRG would no longer have complained about that part of the bill.

The list goes on and on with easy fixes that the County Council could have made and refused to.

Now, some fixes may be harder, such as bathrooms. If I were the County Council, and I was concerned about bathroom safety for transgenders, I would have hammered out something with the business community. It might have been a long, hard process, but it would have been worth it in the end -- and it would have been something that everyone could be happy and proud of.

For instance, why not implement unisex bathrooms? I know that the County Council says that this is too expensive of an option. However, they did not even try to form citizen and business committees to address this issue. (Some people, including those with CRG, have unisex confused with multi sex bathrooms. Allowing men and women into the bathrooms is multi sex; allowing one person in at a time is unisex).

After speaking with lots of people on this issue, I believe that there would be huge, overwhelming community support for unisex bathrooms. Families with children would especially love it. I would love it and I'd be willing to be taxed heartily for it. In fact, where's my checkbook? I'll write a check right now to the County.

The problem is, the County Council doesn't wish to be bothered with the hard work such a proposal would entail. I think that they should work with the business community and see if it's possible to slowly phase in something like this, over a 5-year to 30-year timeframe. Every time a remodeling project is started, for instance, they could include unisex bathrooms in the plan.

Or, maybe the business community could put their heads together and come up with another plan. The point is, THE COUNTY COUNCIL NEVER EVEN TRIED.

In this County, it takes longer to get a permit to remodel a home on the historical registry than it did for the Council to pass this bill.

You keep saying that I'm accusing transgenders of being perverts. ON THE CONTRARY, I'm saying that there are lots of HETEROSEXUAL, NON-TRANSGENDER males who are perverts, and who would love to use this bill. I'm not concerned about a transsexual who has had a sex change operation being in my bathroom. I am concerned about heterosexual males who will use it as a way to gain access to bathrooms. I am concerned about heterosexual transgenders who still retain their male genitals. Crime is all about access and this is just one more route of access that doesn't need to be opened up. A lazy County Council took the lazy route -- and we have to suffer for it.

You talk about other issues, including thoughts about he whole concept around changing one's gender. I need to go but will be back to write down my thoughts about those.

August 09, 2008 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm the anon who just wrote the statement above. Please excuse all of the typos. I should have read the post before sending it.

August 09, 2008 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. to Emproph -- I noticed that I said you brought up housing, but you didn't. You mention that the CRG has problems with transportation services, but I'm not aware of any problem with that part of the bill. You also mention "other public services" or something like that. What are you talking about -- which public services?

August 09, 2008 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What legislator writes a piece of legislation with the full knowledge that the courts will one day have to interpet it?

Get real and ask yourself this Anon. Are the courts are still intepreting the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the Constitution and more?

Our government has three branches, which were designed by our Founding Fathers to check each other and keep each other in balance. Laws are routinely put to the test in our judicial system, by design. What country are you living in?

I am concerned about heterosexual males who will use it as a way to gain access to bathrooms.

Your concern is irrational. To demonstrate the irrationality of it, go to the 100+ jurisdictions that already include gender identity in their non-discrimination laws and see how many "heterosexual males" have used that law "to gain access to bathrooms." You will find precisely zero.

August 09, 2008 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea -- No legislator with any ethics writes a law with the knowledge that they're writing in vagueness and hoping that they gain political points by writing it that way --knowing full well that it will be left to the courts to clarify. That is not what we elect our legislators to do. We elect them to write good, clear laws. Some legislators make honest errors and think that they're writing clearly when they're not. However, that's different from what our County Council has done here -- purposeful confusion.

August 09, 2008 10:06 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“And guess what? Voila! The CRG would no longer have complained about that part of the bill.”

BS. I contend that they WOULD have continued to have complained about that part of the bill.

August 09, 2008 10:09 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“For instance, why not implement unisex bathrooms? I know that the County Council says that this is too expensive of an option. However, they did not even try to form citizen and business committees to address this issue. (Some people, including those with CRG, have unisex confused with multi sex bathrooms. Allowing men and women into the bathrooms is multi sex; allowing one person in at a time is unisex).

After speaking with lots of people on this issue, I believe that there would be huge, overwhelming community support for unisex bathrooms. Families with children would especially love it. I would love it and I'd be willing to be taxed heartily for it. In fact, where's my checkbook? I'll write a check right now to the County.”


Me, too, and I don’t even live in Montgomery County. But as my point above illustrates, the CRG has no intention of even ATTEMPTING to protect whom they feel are “gender confused” - in ANY way.

Like I said, if this (the way you put it) were the case, at least there would be an honest discussion going on.

August 09, 2008 10:34 AM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

"To demonstrate the irrationality of it, go to the 100+ jurisdictions that already include gender identity in their non-discrimination laws"

I think new-anon's point,Bea, is that those bills were more precisely written.

August 09, 2008 10:41 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“I think new-anon's point,Bea, is that those bills were more precisely written.”

And do you think that the CRG would then acquiesce to the legal need for gender Identity protection?

August 09, 2008 11:50 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

They were not more precisely written. The Council considered language from various jurisdictions, and settled on the current language. There have been no problems in any jurisdiction with either tighter or looser language.

You are either wrong or lying, and since I don't know who you are, I can't make that distinction.

The business community doesn't give a damn about this bill, nor are they interested in a mandate to build unisex bathrooms. They build them and reconvert to them when they feel it is in their interest. That's just fine.

I use the women's bathroom, have been using it, and will continue to do so. I use a unisex bathroom when it is the only one available. Trans men use the men's room. Period.

Once again -- this is not about bathrooms. This is about sin and a primitive view of mental illness and an ignorance about human biology from the people who want a 19th century sex-ed curriculum, creationism in school, and will no doubt seek to ban contraception should they ever get the chance.

August 09, 2008 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Basic civics lesson here:

The legislative branch writes laws.

The executive carries them out.

The courts, when faced with disputes regarding the law, interpret the law.

Nobody "left this law to be interpreted by the courts," you a^%#%%^$# moron. That's what courts DO.

Of course, your sort is always complaining about activist courts, so perhaps we should understand why that's such an abhorrent thing for you. However, if you don't like the role of the courts or the basic notion ofseparation of powers, you have to take that up with the authors of the U.S. Constitution.

It's pretty flippin' amazing how ignorant the trolls are on this blog. Grrrrr.

August 09, 2008 12:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

... even Mike Knapp has stated that it would have been up to the courts to interpret various parts ...

Anon, I'm not saying this didn't happen, but I can't find any reference to it on the Internet. Could you please supply us with a link with a direct quote, so we can agree on what we're talking about here?

JimK

August 09, 2008 1:16 PM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

"I use the women's bathroom, have been using it, and will continue to do so. I use a unisex bathroom when it is the only one available. Trans men use the men's room. Period."

No one has had a big problem with someone who has had surgery using the bathroom of the gender they appear to be. It's the language about "expressing" that was Dana's downfall.

Who knows? In the final analysis, there may be a law forcing Dana to use the men's room- and it's all because of over-reaching on the part of the lunatics.

"Once again -- this is not about bathrooms. This is about sin and a primitive view of mental illness and an ignorance about human biology from the people who want a 19th century sex-ed curriculum, creationism in school, and will no doubt seek to ban contraception should they ever get the chance."

You can tell Dana fears losing the debate when the "throw-in-the-kitchen-sink" strategy kicks in.

Focus, Dana, focus.

"Nobody "left this law to be interpreted by the courts," you a^%#%%^$# moron. That's what courts DO."

This is a little different. The legislators are purposely leaving the language vague to pass a bill without overtly stating their real intent.

August 09, 2008 1:21 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"You can tell Dana fears losing the debate when the "throw-in-the-kitchen-sink" strategy kicks in."

But they would ban contraception if given the chance.

Do you deny this?

August 09, 2008 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I use the women's bathroom, have been using it, and will continue to do so. I use a unisex bathroom when it is the only one available. Trans men use the men's room. Period.

And exactly what are you going to do if someone complains and has you kicked out?

August 09, 2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

"But they would ban contraception if given the chance.

Do you deny this?"

I've never heard anyone suggest this.

It is a good example of what a little fascist Dana is though. Using a government position to intimidate business owners into kicking petitioners off their property is a classic technique of fascism. Going out and yelling at petitioners that are protesting the Council's actions is a classic technique of fascism. This type of lying above is another classic technique.

Dana says something with absolutely no basis and then one of the Deadhead readers from Takoma Park sees it and starts telling his friends while they're passing around a J, "Did you hear that CRG wants to, like, ban contraception, man? Wow! Far out!" Soon a complete falsehood is making the rounds.

Started by Dana.

Dana the Liar.

What more is there to say?

August 09, 2008 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I think new-anon's point,Bea, is that those [other jurisdictions'] bills were more precisely written.

Then you are both wrong, Sybil. As I already posted on this blog twice in the last few weeks:

...anti-discrimination laws from other jurisdictions...include the same or similar language to Bill 23-07, which states:

Gender identity means an individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

New York's language is very
similar:

"Gender" is defined in the City's Human Rights Law to include:
• actual or perceived sex;
• gender identity;
• self-image;
• appearance; and,
• behavior or expression,
whether or not that gender identity, selfimage, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to an individual at birth.

So is San Francisco's:

"DEFINITION OF GENDER IDENTITY
Chapters 12A, 12B, and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code and Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code define "Gender Identity" as "a person’s various individual attributes as they are understood to be masculine and/or feminine." * Gender Identity therefore includes discrimination based upon an individual’s self-asserted gender identity and/or gender expression whether or not different from that traditionally associated with the person’s actual or perceived sex as assigned at birth."

And Rhode Island:

The term "gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.


Dana said: "But they would ban contraception if given the chance.

Do you deny this?"


Anon replied: I've never heard anyone suggest this.

HHS has proposed a change in the language of one of their regulations covering medical personnel, which might do exactly that.

According to the language in a draft of the regulation that leaked last month, the rule would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."

Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, which advocates for physician-assisted suicide, said she remains concerned that the regulation could apply to health-care workers who refuse to participate in a variety of end-of-life care, including the withdrawal of unwanted feeding tubes and ventilators.

One section of the draft regulation defines abortion as
"any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other groups said the draft regulation is so broad that they remain alarmed.

"Until the regulation removes the re-definition of abortion and it clearly states that it deals solely with abortion (and not with any other procedure, nor with any refusals based on the nature of the patient, such as single or gay), I would not be satisfied," R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin wrote in an e-mail. "There is no reason to extend any benefit of the doubt to this administration when it comes to reproductive rights or the civil rights of gay people."

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) sent a letter to Leavitt yesterday requesting a meeting about the draft regulation. "We remain concerned by the regulations' potential to create barriers for women seeking health care, to jeopardize federal programs that provide family-planning services and
to disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control," they wrote.

Christina Pearson, an HHS spokeswoman,
refused to elaborate on the statement. In his posting, Leavitt said the agency was "still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner practice"
[as opposed to the protection of American women seeking contraception.]

Anon complained Using a government position to intimidate business owners into kicking petitioners off their property is a classic technique of fascism.

No it isn't. Fascists didn't intimidate business owners or petitioners they disagreed with; they had other ways to deal with them. They made laws that placed limitations on their hate-targets' ability to find a job, a place to live, etc. Once discriminatory laws were firmly in place, they made public announcements and proclamations denigrating their hate-target to the populace. And we all know that led to.

The CRWeirdos are using the same techniques the fascists did. CRWeirdos seek to keep a law that allows discrimination against their hate-target, trans folk, while Sybil works feverishly here day after day to denigrate them publicly.

August 09, 2008 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I wonder if the two current anti-lgbt anonymoi are really different people. Maybe their from the same litter.

I'll tell you what the deal is about gender expression: it's about prohibiting discrimination and harassment againt people who may not meet the perpetrators notions of "sufficient masculine" or "feminine enough."

Anyone who's been called 'queer' or 'fag' or 'sissy' or 'dyke' knows that the harasser or discriminator hates them because they're just not the way that perpetrator thinks they should be.

Wasn't Theresa's Rio incident about a 'man with large hands?'

It is absoluntely fantastical to think that heterosexual peeping toms and molesters will 'use' this law to violate anyone's privacy. It's an astonishing stretch. I find it hard to believe that people can make that argument as anything other than a scare tactic in what amounts to an organized campaign against lgbt people (when you form 501(c)3s, its an organized campaign.

Dana makes the point that the people who belong to CRG probably oppose contraception. I'm sure many of them do. They explicitly support 'treatment' to change gay people to straight. I do not doubt at all that if they were able, the would make such 'treatment' mandatory.

Sorry for the rant. The trolls got to me.

rrjr

August 09, 2008 7:50 PM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

"Dana makes the point that the people who belong to CRG probably oppose contraception. I'm sure many of them do."

Many, huh? Who can deny such a broad-based statement? I'm sure many TTFers engage taking illegal drugs. Many early Nazis were gay.

Still don't get it, do you, Robert?

What you are saying is without basis. It is the equivalent oflying.

I see Bea has backed this up by claiming killing unborn children is a form of birth control.

Unbelievable.

Do me a favor, would you?

Could all you TTFers get together and make a commercial for Obama?

That'd be great!

August 09, 2008 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

As a case in point, Maryland's sodomy law, which only applied to same-gender relations, was not found to be against the state's constitution until 1998.

Until that time, same-gender sexual activity was punishable in Maryland by 10 years in prison.

What do you want to bet the the CRW/PFOX set are longing for the 'good old days.'

I really find it hard to believe that all this hullabaloo (including current posts by Joe Anon and his new buddy/twin/hatchling Herman Anon are not just the same old bigotry in a very ratty, not-so-new coat. Call me a skeptic.

Again, I apologize for the ranting. Sometime's we all lose patience.

rrjr

August 09, 2008 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Nazi's were gay. Jews poisoned the wells. Mormon's are stealing our children. All part of the same parcel.

August 09, 2008 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I see Bea has backed this up by claiming killing unborn children is a form of birth control.

Unbelievable.


No actually it's not "unbelievable" that you have once again put words in my mouth. Let's see you cut and paste a quote of mine that says that, liar.

August 09, 2008 8:09 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Vidkun queried:

"Still don't get it, do you, Robert?"

Oh, honey, I get you completely. We all do.

rrjr

August 09, 2008 8:10 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Robert's right, we all get you.

And Robert was right a few days ago too: Bigotry is repetitive.

You, Sybil, offer nothing new.

August 09, 2008 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nazi's were gay. Jews poisoned the wells. Mormon's are stealing our children. CRG wants to outlaw contraception. All part of the same parcel.

You still don't get it you little bald moron. A couple of days ago you were whining that pointing out that there was a strong gay influence on the Nazi party was "toxic".

You see there was an influential group of gays that were among the key founders of the Nazi party. That's a fact. Does that mean all gays are responsible for Nazism? Of course not.

But if you'll notice, I only bring up this inconvenient truth when you and your friends launch into your idiotic spiel about how traditional sexual morality is the equivalent of Nazism.

That's a lie, just like it's a lie when you start speculating on what else someone so horrible as to oppose genderless restrooms might also advocate.

It would be like someone from CRG saying: "Those lunatics from TTF, they probably also want to revoke statutory rape laws and sell photos of bestiality at grocery stores."

You wouldn't like that, would you, Robert?

Now, do you get it, you unstable slimeball?

August 09, 2008 10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay -- I'm the anon who tried to give some options earlier today, like unisex bathrooms, for the transgender community. About the courts...courts are supposed to interpret a law as it pertains to new or unforeseen circumstances. Otherwise, the judiciary branch, which is a vital part of our system, would be the sole lawmaking body, and a County Council would not even be necessary. Jim -- Mike Knapp's statement came from a public meeting back sometime in the winter. Emproph, I said that I would give you my views on some other issues, but, as you'll see below, I'm not going to after all. Aunt Bea -- Definitions of gender identity may be similar in other jurisdictions, but the difference is that most have reasonable exemptions, which the CRG has repeatedly asked for.

And, to all...I have tried to have civil conversations here and today realized that this is an unhealthy place. In this one discussion thread alone, I have been called more names than I care to count. This is unacceptable. I won't be posting here again. Best of luck to all of you.

August 09, 2008 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you please take the guy who called Robert a slimeball with you?

August 09, 2008 10:46 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You may have tried to have a reasonable discussion, though how calling for a County building plan for unisex bathrooms could be considered reasonable is beyond me, but by failing to identify yourself you clearly were willing to be associated with some of the worse trolls here. I don't understand what you're so ashamed of. If you believe you have reasonable points to make, then make them and take the credit for having made them.

August 09, 2008 11:37 PM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

I notice you don't say that to people like the poster immediately previous to you, Dana.

Makes your protest somewhat hollow.

"You may have tried to have a reasonable discussion,"

anon-departed said they tried to have a "civil" not a "reasonable" coversation.

Point in fact, expecting society to forgo the concept of gender simply because it confuses you is not reasonable.

August 10, 2008 9:04 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"Emproph, I said that I would give you my views on some other issues, but, as you'll see below, I'm not going to after all."

Few “answers” were even necessary.

The supposed “other” anon brings up some good points once in awhile that deserve to be answered, unfortunately, when we engage him he tends to repeat the ineffective talking points that the “family” groups propagate - and have been refuted (on this site even) ad-infinitum.

If nothing else, and if you are not the regular anon of which I speak, please understand that disagreement and discussion is quite possible (and welcome) here, but many of us have, and still are, quite jaded by the unrelenting and gratuitous insults that the ’anon’ of which I speak, continually thrusts upon us.

I really liked your argument about the tax to pay for unisex bathrooms. Not necessarily practical, or even necessary (in the gender ID context), but as you said even parents with children might appreciate such a measure.

Point being, I appreciate the idea as a solution to the “problem.”

August 10, 2008 11:37 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

"Civil" and "reasonable" are close enough for government work, as the saying goes.

I've never been confused about my gender. Society simply didn't understand these matters then, and it took experience and science to clarify.

I posit that you're the one who is confused about gender, if you actually believe that I am somehow a threat to the binary system. I get more flak from those who complain that my work actually solidifies the gender binary than from people like you who ignore the reality of my life and all those others whose lives you simply ignore. The intersex community would be as upset with you as the trans community if they had an organized voice and an outlet. One would think that when the Chinese are obsessed with gender testing in the Olympics, and can't make up their minds as to what actually constitutes male and female, that you might actually learn something about the variations inherent in human sexuality, but apparently that is asking too much.

August 10, 2008 12:01 PM  
Blogger Battybattybats said...

Wow... so many failures of logic.

"One big difference is...the County Council didn't pass legislation which tries to make us give special rights to "those who have large breasts or those who perceive that they have large breasts, or who have ever thought that they might like to have large breasts.""

Only if basic services were being refused on those grounds it would be be reprehensible for them not to protect such people from being discriminated against just because of their breasts.

"The problem is, the County Council seems to be greedy. They want to include every possible fringe group so that not one of them is left out -- from the person who just thinks about women's clothes, to the transsexual who takes a step to have the operation. Lumping them all into one, broad definition is the downfall of this Bill. It's called "pork barreling" when you get right down to it. Adding pork to a bill is one of the fastest ways to kill it, though no County Council member tried to kill it so now the citizens of Montgomery County are forced to do so."

So nonsensical. Lets use another xample and see how this works.. a simple shifting to another discrimination group:

The problem is, the County Council seems to be greedy. They want to include every possible fringe group so that not one of them is left out -- from the person who is black, to the half-black who takes a step to act white. They even want to allow Asians to use white peoples bathrooms! Lumping them all into one, broad definition is the downfall of this Bill. It's called "pork barreling" when you get right down to it. Adding pork to a bill is one of the fastest ways to kill it, though no County Council member tried to kill it so now the citizens of Montgomery County are forced to do so.

You see anti-discrimination legislation is for everyone. Race protection covers whites americans, asian americans, native americans, african americans all equally.

Try it with religion:
They want to include every possible fringe group so that not one of them is left out -- from the person who is jewish, to the catholic who at last is christian. Why even Muslims and Atheists and Bhuddists would be included! Lumping them all into one, broad definition is the downfall of this Bill.

See freedom of religion covers all these too.

All antidiscrimination is wide or its nonsense! It must cover as much of the population as possible to be ethical! Including every single person discriminated against under that kind of criteria!

In a world with Lesbains in it (and there are lesbian rapists and lesbian pedophiles after all, oh and don't forget straight women who rape and straight women pedophiles in fact stat wise trans people are some of the safest) what the heck are these bathrooms and changerooms and showers doing allowing public same-sex nudity where Bi and Lesbian women come and go freely?

See, it's a non-issue! Put up better stalls and doors on the bathrooms and changerooms! That solves the real problem!

"The problem is, the County Council doesn't wish to be bothered with the hard work such a proposal would entail. I think that they should work with the business community and see if it's possible to slowly phase in something like this, over a 5-year to 30-year timeframe. Every time a remodeling project is started, for instance, they could include unisex bathrooms in the plan."

That at least seesms reasonable. But where do people go in the meantime? Why have as much as a 30 year timeframe - a whole generation!

Or maybe we could do what we did when we let black people in with whites despite common views that black pople were violent canibal rapists that carried disease.. get over the myths and the discomfort so we treat fellow humans like they are fellow humans!

August 11, 2008 3:28 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"You still don't get it you little bald moron."

So you know my hairstyle. Hmmmm. Where have we met?

I agree with you though, calling CRG Nazis is no less toxic than calling gays nazis.

But.

The CRG/W/PFOX et al group were more than happy when the power of the state was used to impose chemical and physical mistreatment on lgbt people, and to incarcerate us. As much as they (and anon) want to say that they don't support mistreatment of lgbt people, they just don't want special rights, I don't believe it. Many of these groups have filed amicus briefs in cases to end official governmental harassment of lgbt people, and I find it simply unbelievable that they now disclaim all those centuries of mistreatment, and are now only concerned with bathroom privacy and helping only people with 'unwanted' same-gender attractions. It doesn't hold water. No their not Nazis, but they are by no means nor ever have been friends of queer people.

You, however, Vidkun, have been sufficiently rude and abusive to kind-hearted people on this blog that you are fair game. I think being abused by lgbt people allows you to imagine yourself as a victim of all the vicious queers. If it makes you happy, go for it.

rrjr

August 11, 2008 2:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home