Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Gainesville Shower-Nuts, Here We Go Again

You will remember that a group of extremists here in Montgomery County, Maryland, tried to relegalize discrimination against transgender people by telling citizens they should sign petitions to stop men from going into ladies rooms. In fact there was nothing in our law about restrooms. There had been something in an early draft of the bill, but because the shower-nuts complained during the legislation development process, the County Council removed that wording.

We came close to having a referendum on the nondiscrimination law, based on the allegation that it would allow creepy perverted men to lurk in ladies locker-rooms and restrooms. Luckily, there weren't enough signatures. The Citizens for Responsible Whatever turned in 30,087 signatures. After one court got through with them, that was down to 26,813. After another court looked at it, by my arithmetic they had 15,937 signatures. They needed 27,615. They did have more than half the number they needed, which tells you how many gullible people in our county are able to sign their correct names.

Down in Florida they passed a law that did put in wording about restrooms. The Gainesville city council voted 4-3 to allow transgender people to decide which restroom they would use. Now they've got shower-nuts of their own down there, saying the exact same stuff ours were saying. And why not? It worked so well in Montgomery County.

See if this doesn't sound familiar. The NYT:
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A blond girl heads from a playground into a women's restroom. A scruffy-looking man, lurking outside, darts in behind her. "Your City Commission made this legal," the words on the television screen read.

The advertisement came from opponents of a gender-identity provision added last year to Gainesville's antidiscrimination ordinance. The provision allows the city's roughly 100 transgender residents to use whichever restroom they choose.

Foes want to repeal the provision with a ballot measure on March 24. The issue has divided Gainesville, a generally gay-friendly university city in staunchly conservative north Florida.

Supporters of the transgender protections say opponents are using the dispute to unleash a broader attack on the rights of gay and transgender people in general. Foes Say Law Protects Predators

Honestly, I should tell you, yesterday I got a phone call from a friend who's visiting in Florida. He called me from the highway on his cell phone to say, "You might be interested in this. Did you know that down here they have a new law that anybody can use whatever bathroom they want?" We talked.

This ad actually makes exactly the opposite point from the one the Florida shower-nuts want to make, but people are so ignorant they don't get it. Here's the stupid video they're showing down in Florida.



Look, when I saw this, I thought it was showing a transgender man, that is, a person who has transitioned from a female to male gender identity, going into the ladies room, which he'd have to do if the law is repealed. Like, for instance, CLICK HERE for a photo gallery of real transmen, men who were originally assigned female gender. There're a lot of beards, chrome-domes, rippling muscles, whatever, these are guys. They look just like the guy who is going into the ladies room in the Gainesville ad.

Now, the funny thing is this. The new law down there says that men who used to be designated female can use the men's room. And this video is a perfect example of why you'd want that. You don't want this macho, bearded transman going into the ladies room, he'd make the other ladies very uncomfortable, even if he used to be a lady himself. Look at the video. You want that person to go into the men's room. But if you forced people to go into the restroom for the gender they were assigned at birth, that is, if the shower-nuts get their way, this is exactly what you'd get.

Turn it around, look at the ladies. CLICK HERE. Do you want these women going into the men's room? Unh-uh. No, you don't.

Why in the world would those idiots down there want to force people to use the wrong restroom? This is one of those examples where the answer is actually embedded in the question. Hint: look at the word "idiots."

It might make you uncomfortable to know that the person in the next stall used to be ... whatever you aren't. I'm sorry, that person needs to pee sometimes. I really, I mean really, can't see why anybody wants to pick on transgender people, of all the things in the world. And it makes absolutely no sense to demand that men use the ladies room and vice versa, which is essentially what overthrowing the Gainesville law would do.

23 Comments:

Anonymous Derrick said...

I don´t know if you guys have heard of it yet but there is a new movie that will be on Lifetime called ¨Prayers for Bobby¨ and has to do with religious parents who try to pray away their child being gay. Even the trailer is pretty emotionally tolling, so...here´s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBVcTCpKx3g

January 13, 2009 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Citizens for Responsible Whatever turned in 30,087 signatures. After one court got through with them, that was down to 26,813. After another court looked at it, by my arithmetic they had 15,937 signatures."

Your arithmetic is wrong.

"I got a phone call from a friend who's visiting in Florida. He called me from the highway on his cell phone to say, "You might be interested in this. Did you know that down here they have a new law that anybody can use whatever bathroom they want?""

Anyone else find this sad?

Anyway, the issue down there is the same as it was here. There wasn't a law saying who could use what bathroom. Gay nuts got one passed and infringed on the rights of owners of the facilities to make their own policies.

I'm quite sure all transgenders were having no trouble finding a place to go tot the bathroom previously.

January 14, 2009 6:53 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Your arithmetic is wrong.

Maybe it is, Anon, that's why I mentioned it. The first judge allowed 26,813 signatures. The appeals court said "the 10,876 challenged signatures were invalid as a matter of law," and I am assuming that is from the pool left after Greenberg's decision, but they may have been looking at the total set, in which case the number would be several thousand higher.

Jim

January 14, 2009 6:59 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Interesting.

HRC Back Story (featured as "Equality is Gainesville's Business" in the NYT link Jim provided), found this little addition to the same first paragraph, in other versions of the story:
---
“The story begins:

~~A blond girl heads from a playground into a women's restroom. A scruffy man, lurking outside, darts in behind her. "Your City Commission Made This Legal," the words on the TV screen read. And it's true, sort of.~~

While researching the story, I noticed something interesting. The line, “And it’s true, sort of,” wasn’t in some versions of the story reprinted by news agencies around the country. I phoned Ron Word, the writer, to trace where the line originated. Mr. Word told me the version of the story he originally submitted did not include the line—that it was added by an editor before the story went out on the wire. A later editor, in coordination with Word, decided to pull the line from the story, but not before it had appeared in print and online all over the country.”

January 14, 2009 10:14 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“I'm quite sure all transgenders were having no trouble finding a place to go tot the bathroom previously.”

So you support women in the men’s room and men in the women’s room?

January 14, 2009 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous":
You, as usual, incorrectly define reality: "Gay nuts got one passed and infringed on the rights of owners of the facilities to make their own policies."
Once again, you have ignorantly conflated issues. Gay issues are Gay issues; Transgender issues are Transgender issues. While the Gay community is supportive of Transgender issues and worked diligently, along with other citizens of every political, religious, and socio-economic level, to achieve the amendment to Montgomery County's Human Rights policies and laws, Gays were not, and are not, the primary advocates of issues affecting the safety and welfare of the Transgender community. When the issue of fairness and equality of treatment arose here in Montgomery County, in Gainesville, Florida, or in any other locality, the GLBT community joins hands and works together to achieve "equal protection of the law" and the venerable rights guaranteed to every citizen in the United States. Gay "nuts" as you so charmingly describe them, believe in and support the goals of the Transgender community and are not advocates of discrimination, which you are.
You, sir or madam, are - simply put - a bigot!
Diogenes

January 14, 2009 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous is a bigot, but I think of him in a queer sort of way as being our own bigot.

January 14, 2009 11:34 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Anon, what do you think caused your bigotry?

And do you think it's possible that it may just be a phase you'll grow out of?

January 14, 2009 12:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "There wasn't a law saying who could use what bathroom. Gay nuts got one passed and infringed on the rights of owners of the facilities to make their own policies.".

You hypocrite. When owners of the facilities want to exclude blacks or Jews from using their bathrooms you don't support them making their own policies. In a just society we don't allow owners of facilities to do such things.

Bad anonymous said "I'm quite sure all transgenders were having no trouble finding a place to go tot the bathroom previously.".

That comment highlights your stupidity. You haven't interviewed all transgendered people so you're not in any position to be sure of anything. You're sure of this just like you were sure Huckabee was going to be president.

January 14, 2009 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya said; "You hypocrite. When owners of the facilities want to exclude blacks or Jews from using their bathrooms you don't support them making their own policies. In a just society we don't allow owners of facilities to do such things."

So, Priya, are you saying that "facilities" in Montgomery County's Public Accommodation does include bathrooms within those facilities?

January 14, 2009 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction: In the above statement, I meant to say "Public Accommodations CODE".

January 14, 2009 2:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Priya, are you saying that "facilities" in Montgomery County's Public Accommodation does include bathrooms within those facilities?".

No. I don't know if it does or not, but I certainly wouldn't take your word for whether or not it does. Jim can answer that question for you.

January 14, 2009 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No. I don't know if it does or not"

getting down to to it, you don't know a heck of a lot, do you?

January 14, 2009 7:21 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Bottom line - The law is NOT about bathrooms and the fact that these folks are pulling it down to that common denominator of inaccuracy says more about their values than about whether or not the law is correct.

It's sad when folks with supposed "family values" obligingly shove their hands into the muck.

January 14, 2009 8:27 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

When they wash their hands in the muck...

January 14, 2009 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the Montgomery County Council did, of course, include bathrooms in the first version of the bill -- which is what got everyone thinking about bathrooms. Funny, they say "bathrooms" and we think "bathrooms." And bathrooms are full of muck, when you think about it.

Had the Council itself not mentioned bathrooms in the bill, then no one would be thinking about bathrooms.

Then, the Council took the bathrooms out -- realizing, of course, that bathrooms are, indeed, part of an organization's facilities so bathrooms are already included in the existing law. Why be blatant when sneaky will do just fine?

Also, the Gainesville law does specifically include bathrooms.

So how is it that this has nothing to do with bathrooms?

January 14, 2009 10:55 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Well that settles it for me. Your mind is officially in the toilet.

January 15, 2009 12:22 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

In Latin: "Mens eius est in latrina"

January 15, 2009 8:55 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Ironically, the only case I’m aware of a Gender Identity law being used to protect someone’s right to use a bathroom is in New York City, where a WOMAN was thrown out of the WOMEN’s restroom: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/05/13/2008-05-13_woman_mistaken_for_man_settles_ladies_ro.html

I’ve used women’s restrooms in MoCo about five years now… in businesses, restaurants, stores, never had a problem – even when I still had boy parts. Sometimes while I’m washing my hands another woman will compliment me on my outfit or my curly hair.

I fail to see the fascination in the subject myself, but for those who are still confused or frightened about transsexual urination or defecation I recommend the book: “Everyone Poops” by Taro Gomi. You can find it at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Everyone-Poops-My-Body-Science/dp/192913214X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232032857&sr=1-3

Peace,

Cynthia

January 15, 2009 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"Everyone Poops" is a fabulous book.

rrjr

January 15, 2009 11:02 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you don't know a heck of a lot, do you?".

Well, certainly more than you. I knew it was utterly stupid of you to insist you knew who was going to win the election, who was going to be Mccain's running mate, and that the lowest of a series of polls was more representative of reality than the rest in the series.

And unlike you I know right from wrong, that its wrong to oppress those who harm no one, and that the essence of morality is "do whatever you want, but harm no one".

January 15, 2009 11:57 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Svelte Brunette said "I’ve used women’s restrooms in MoCo about five years now… in businesses, restaurants, stores, never had a problem – even when I still had boy parts.".

I transitioned gradually over several years. Initially I dressed androgynously and used the men's bathroom because I bought into the idea that genetic women would be upset if I used the women's bathrooms. As I became more feminine I reached a point where the men in the men's room would do double takes when they'd see me in there. I knew that if I continued to use the men's room that at some point I'd be assaulted. This is what the bigots like bad anonymous would force us into. At that point I decided it was time to start using the women's bathroom and have been doing so ever since. I'm still nervous about it because I know that some women are bigots and would cause a scene if they knew I was trans so I try to avoid using public bathrooms whenever possible. That's an unfortunate situation, all transpeople should be free to use the bathroom consistent with their gender expression - that's the best situation for all involved. No doubt if bad anonymous had his way and those masculine transmen Jim posted the link to went into the women's bathroom there'd be an uproar. The bigots like bad anonymous haven't thought this through logically - their desire to hurt LGBTS overrides all common sense.

January 15, 2009 1:35 PM  
Blogger Zoe Brain said...

I'm in an unusual situation because of my peculiar metabolism, but all that meant was that things happened at fast-forward with my transition.

On July 27th 2005, I wore my usual clothing, same kind of things I'd worn for 47 years.

Walking from where my car was parked a kilometre away to my office, I got threatened with rape for being a very unconvincing "drag king", a completely unpassable "butch dyke".

So on July 28th, I went in with such female clothing as I'd been able to buy at thrift shops over the previous 3 weeks, as it had been obvious I'd have to make the change one day. I thought I'd have at least 6 months, but things were happening too fast.

And I used the women's restroom, for the first time in my life. I've not been in to a male restroom since.

It was over a year later that the surgeons cleaned up the ambiguous mess that the change had caused, and reconstructed something approximating normal genitalia. I had to go overseas for that, the local surgeons only do conventional Sex Reassignment surgery.

January 21, 2009 9:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home